Joint Strike Fighter Can Carry Raytheon Joint Standoff Weapon Internally
JSOW C-1 combined with JSF gives warfighter a powerful new capability
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Nov. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Raytheon Company /quotes/zigman/283276/quotes/nls/rtn RTN +1.97% has completed a fit check of the Joint Standoff Weapon in the internal carriage bay of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
"The capabilities of the JSF combined with JSOW C-1's ability to precisely engage moving ships at sea from standoff ranges would give the U.S. and coalition warfighter a powerful capability," said Cmdr. Samuel Hanaki, U.S. Navy JSOW deputy program manager.
During the fit check, Raytheon technicians loaded a JSOW shape in the JSF's internal carriage bay and conducted a series of tests to prove the bay door could close properly without damaging the aircraft or the weapon.
"JSOW C-1 is the world's first net-enabled standoff weapon that can engage a moving maritime target," said Phyllis McEnroe, JSOW program director for Raytheon Missile Systems. "With its more than 110 kilometer range (68 statute miles) and tunnel defeat capability, JSOW C-1 will give members of the JSF a critical capability no other weapon can provide."
About the Joint Standoff Weapon
JSOW is a family of low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employs an integrated GPS- inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker, guiding the weapon to the target. JSOW C-1 adds moving maritime target capability and the two-way strike common weapon datalink to the combat-proven weapon.
JSOW C-1 is the world's first networked weapon, and has a range of more than 110 kilometers (60 nautical miles).
The U.S. Navy completed the first free-flight test of JSOW C-1 on July 26, 2011.
About Raytheon
Raytheon Company, with 2010 sales of $25 billion, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 89 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a broad range of mission support services. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 72,000 people worldwide. For more about Raytheon, visit us at www.raytheon.com and follow us on Twitter @raytheon.
Media ContactMike Nachshen+1.520.794.4088rmspr@raytheon.com
SOURCE Raytheon Company
Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved
November 13, 2011 4:01 pm
Blow to Rafale as UAE eyes Eurofighter
By John O'Doherty
The export hopes for France's Rafale fighter jet were dealt a heavy setback on Sunday after it emerged that the United Arab Emirates was considering buying the rival Eurofighter Typhoon for its air force.
The news will come as a blow to the French government, which has strong military links with the UAE and had invested considerable political capital in recent months on lobbying the country's government to choose the French-made jet.
Eurofighter, the consortium maker of the Typhoon, confirmed on Sunday that the UAE had approached the UK government for a briefing on the Typhoon and its capabilities. A briefing with the UAE took place on October 17 and shortly after this the UAE government submitted a "request for proposal" (RFP) to Eurofighter, inviting it to submit an offer to supply 60 jets.
"Eurofighter received an RFP from the government of the UAE and we are working on submitting a response as quickly as possible," a spokesperson for Eurofighter said on Sunday.
Eurofighter is a consortium comprising BAE Systems of the UK, Finmeccanica of Italy and the pan-European aerospace group EADS.
The UAE air force's combat fleet is composed of about 60 Lockheed Martin F-16s and 60 older Mirage 2000s, which are made by Dassault, the maker of the Rafale. The UAE's fleet of F-16s is relatively recent and thus any new combat aircraft it chooses will replace the Mirage jets.
France has been promoting the sale of Rafale aircraft abroad for several years but the jet has yet to find an export customer outside France. The Typhoon, by contrast, has won orders in both Austria and Saudi Arabia, in addition to the four "launch" nations that collaborated on developing the jet in Germany, the UK, Italy and Spain.
France's sales drive in the UAE has been in train for more than three years now. At several points during that time, French policymakers have expressed confidence that they were very close to signing a deal.
The most recent bout of optimism on the possibility of sales of the Rafale to the UAE came in September this year after a visit to Paris by the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
Rafale's best hope for an export order now is a competition to supply 126 fighters to the Indian air force, a competition in which its only rival is the Typhoon.
Dassault was not available for comment on Sunday.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.
Citaat van: dudge op 14/11/2011 | 00:58 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/11/2011 | 17:44 uur
Blow to Rafale as UAE eyes Eurofighter
nu is de UAE al langer naar alternatieven aan het vissen, dus helemaal een verassing is het niet, maar het leek er toch kort op dat er een deal aan zat te komen, en nu is die weer uitgesteld. Inderdaad een flinke tegenslag voor de Rafale.
Wellicht wordt de RFP bij EADS gebruikt om de onderhandelingen (weer) op scherp te zetten. De Franse hoop was op een accoord voor de aanschaf van 60 Rafale tijdens de Dubai Airshow van deze week.
De offerte aanvraag voor de EF zet een streep door deze ambitie, waarbij ik me niet kan voorstellen dat EADS de zelfde flexabiiteit heeft als de Fransen, immers zij bieden aan om alle overtollige Mirage 2000-9 terug te kopen c.q. in te ruilen.
We zullen zien wat het wordt.
2011 zal toch het eerste Rafale export succes laten zien: 22 stuks voor Zwitserland en/of 126 voor India.
Eurofighter loses ground against F-35 in Japan contract race
The Eurofighter has fallen behind in the race to become Japan's next-generation air-defence fighter.
Defence analysts monitoring the three-way dogfight for the multi-billion contract say Tokyo has been impressed with the stealth technology of the Lockheed Martin F-35, which will enable it to carry out clandestine monitoring of Chinese, North Korean and Russian military assets in the region.
It also remains indebted to Washington for the assistance the US military provided in the aftermath of the March 11 earthquake.
"Even before March 11 there were many factors in favour of the F-35, but since then that national security relationship between the two governments has become much closer," one analyst with knowledge of the bidding told The Daily Telegraph.
The third aircraft in the running for the contract is the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet and representatives of Eurofighter and Boeing have scheduled a joint press conference in Tokyo on Wednesday to debate the merits of their aircraft.
The consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon is continuing to promote the aircraft, however, and remains confident in its product.
"We are in daily contact with the Japanese Ministry of Defence regarding their F-X evaluation," said Andy Latham, vice president of Typhoon exports.
"We maintain that our cost-effective proposal offers Eurofighter Typhoon, the world's most advanced multi-role combat aircraft, as Japan's best option to meet the requirement for its F-X programme and the most capable deterrent to regional threats," he said.
A decision is expected in December and opting for Typhoon would be particularly welcomed by BAE Systems, one of the three European companies building the plane, which in September announced nearly 3,000 potential job losses across Britain.
However BAE is also building part of the F-35 for Lockheed.
RAF Typhoons flew around 3,000 operational hours over Libya, reporting a 99pc success rate against fixed targets and 98pc against mobile targets. That combat experience is seen as vital to the bid.
Eurofighter has declined to reveal the price tag on the aircraft, but each jet is believed to cost around £65m.
The Typhoon is in service with the air forces of the four countries that collaborated on the project and has been sold to Austria and Saudi Arabia.
The governments of India, Greece, Qatar, Oman, South Korea, Denmark, Switzerland, Turkey, Romania, Malaysia and Bulgaria are all also reportedly considering acquiring the aircraft.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8887511/Eurofighter-loses-ground-against-F-35-in-Japan-contract-race.html
U.S. To Buy Decommissioned British Harrier Jets
WASHINGTON and LONDON - Britain has agreed to sell all of its 74 decommissioned Harrier jump jets, along with engines and spare parts, to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps - a move expected to help the Marines operate Harriers into the mid-2020s and provide extra planes to replace aging two-seat F-18D Hornet strike fighters.
Rear Adm. Mark Heinrich, chief of the U.S. Navy's Supply Corps, confirmed the two-part deal Nov. 10 during a conference in New York sponsored by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in association with Defense News.
Heinrich negotiated the $50 million purchase of all Harrier spare parts, while Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the U.S. Navy's program executive officer for tactical aircraft, is overseeing discussions to buy the Harrier aircraft and their Rolls-Royce engines, Heinrich said.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence in London confirmed the Disposal Services Agency was in talks with the U.S. Navy for the sale of the Harriers. The deal had yet to be concluded, he said Nov. 11.
Britain retired its joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy Harrier aircraft late last year in one of the most controversial moves of the defense reductions, which also cut the aircraft carriers that operated the jets, other warships, maritime patrol planes and personnel.
Most of the retired Harriers are stored at the Royal Air Force base at Cottesmore, England.
They have been undergoing minimum fleet maintenance, including anti-deterioration measures, in order to keep them airworthy, Heinrich said.
A spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Naval Air Systems Command declined Nov. 11 to comment on the deal, deferring to the British military.
An MoD source said Nov. 11 that he thought both deals could be signed in the next week or two. The MoD source confirmed that the entire fleet of 74 Harrier aircraft was involved in the sale.
Heinrich noted that payment details were the only outstanding issue on the parts deal discussions, and he said the purchase will give the U.S. Marines a relatively economical way to get their hands on key components to keep the Harrier fleet running.
Similar Aircraft
While it is unusual for the U.S. to buy used foreign military aircraft for operation, integration of the British planes into Marine Corps squadrons shouldn't be a major problem, one expert said.
"I don't think it will be costly to rip out the Brit systems" and replace them with Marine gear, said Lon Nordeen, author of several books on the Harrier.
Nordeen noted that the British GR 9 and 9As are similar in configuration to the Marines' AV-8B night attack version, which make up about a third of U.S. Harriers. The British planes also are night planes dedicated to air-ground attack, he said, and while both types carry Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) sensors, neither is fitted with a multimode radar such as the APG-65 carried by U.S. AV-8B+ models.
The absence of the big radar, Nordeen said, makes the GR 9A and AV-8Bs "a better-performing plane. Weighing less, it's more of a hot rod."
British GR 9s, although upgraded with improved avionics and weapons, are powered by the Rolls-Royce Mark 105 Pegasus engine. GR 9As have the more powerful Mark 107, similar to the Rolls-Royce F402-RR-408s that power Marine AV-8Bs.
British and U.S. Harrier II aircraft had a high degree of commonality from their origin. The planes were developed and built in a joint arrangement between British Aerospace - now BAE Systems - and McDonnell Douglas, now a division of Boeing. While each company built its own wings, all forward sections of the British and American Harrier IIs were built by McDonnell in St. Louis, Mo., while British Aerospace built the fuselage sections aft of the cockpit.
"All the planes have to fit together," Nordeen said.
The Harrier IIs, built between 1980 and 1995, "are still quite serviceable," he said. "The aircraft are not that far apart. We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it."
Operationally, Nordeen said, "these are very good platforms. They need upgrades, but on bombing missions they have the ability to incorporate the Litening II targeting pod [used by U.S. aircraft]. They're good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."
Marine Corps Harriers are to be phased out by 2025, when replacement by new F-35B Joint Strike Fighters should be complete.
Nordeen, however, said he expects the British Harriers to be used initially to replace two-seat Marine F-18D Hornet fighters now operated in the night attack role.
"The F-18Ds are more worn out than the Harriers," Nordeen said. "Most of the conversions [of ex-British aircraft] early on will be to replace 18Ds and not Harriers." He noted the first Marine F-35B squadron already is slated to replace an F-18D unit.
Nordeen applauded the move.
"I would see this as a good bargain to extend the operational utility of the Harrier II fleet, no matter what," he said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8225756&c=EUR&s=AIR
Did Libya Show the Need for Light Attack Planes?
This is interesting, the high-cost of using some of the world's most advanced fighter jets in Libya against Gadhafi's joke of a military has led some NATO allies to consider buying cheap light attack planes similar to the ones the United States wanted to buy to fight insurgencies.
NATO's chief targeteer for the Libyan campaign recently said that it simply cost too much money to deploy cutting edge jets like the Eurofighter Typhoon and France's Rafale for long periods of time against an enemy that had almost no hope shooting them down. In other words, the fancy jets can be overkill, even in campaigns against other nations.
Per Aviation Week:
"We need to think about the need for the future for a low-cost platform to be able to do our job, if required, in a permissive environment," argues Brig. Gen. Silvano Frigerio, deputy chief of air and space plans in the Italian air force and chief of the targeting directorate for NATO's Libya operations.
"If we don't have a composite fleet with very high technology and maybe lesser technology aircraft, how can we manage to fly thousands and thousands of flying hours on a joint operation area looking for one armored vehicle with the sophisticated aircraft we will have in the future? Maybe we can't afford to stay there for such a long time," he says. During the Libya operations, allies were worried about the cost of the duration of the conflict, he tells the International Quality and Productivity Center's annual International Fighter Conference here.
This is pretty much the same argument the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Special Operations Command have all made when asking Congress for cash to buy light turboprop attack and ISR planes that can be used to provide air support to ground troops fighting insurgents in places were the U.S. owns the skies.
However, the Pentagon's quest to field turboprop attack planes seems almost dead. This month, the Air Force was supposed to settle on about 20 light attack planes — either the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 (shown above) or Embraer's Super Tucano — that it could use to help train the Afghan air force, but that effort may well fall victim to the Pentagon's budget cuts.
Could NATO's experience in Libya open the door to a new set of customers for light attack planes — NATO countries that want to be involved in peacekeeping and stability operations around the world but who can't afford to send their precious few frontline fighters on expensive combat deployments?
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/11/11/did-libya-show-the-need-for-light-attack-planes/#ixzz1dfTXMcqb
Defense.org
Is juist, zoals hierboven beschreven, niet beter een combi te hebben binnen je vliegtuigen-bestand van je Luchtmacht.
Interessant stukje over het gebruik van goedkopere vliegtuigen tegen een zakke tegenstander....Ikzelf zou gaan voor een juiste mix van
Gripen's aangevuld met A-10's en (eventueel Supertucano's).
Het merendeel van de missies zal toch zijn tegen een vijand die niet de capaciteit heeft om op hoog niveau te vechten, tegen tegenstanders als Somalische rebellen, Taliban e.d. de tegenstanders van peacekeeping operations heb je meer aan een langzaam vliegend goedkoop toestel dat klopt. Helikopters zoals de apache zijn vaak te kwetsbaar, maar een supertucano of A-10 zou een prima alternatief zijn.
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 14/11/2011 | 10:05 uur
Interessant stukje over het gebruik van goedkopere vliegtuigen tegen een zakke tegenstander....Ikzelf zou gaan voor een juiste mix van
Gripen's aangevuld met A-10's en (eventueel Supertucano's).
Het merendeel van de missies zal toch zijn tegen een vijand die niet de capaciteit heeft om op hoog niveau te vechten, tegen tegenstanders als Somalische rebellen, Taliban e.d. de tegenstanders van peacekeeping operations heb je meer aan een langzaam vliegend goedkoop toestel dat klopt. Helikopters zoals de apache zijn vaak te kwetsbaar, maar een supertucano of A-10 zou een prima alternatief zijn.
Mee eens!
Daarnaast is het goed om binnen (grotere) luchtmachten een taak specialistie te kennen vanuit een cafetaria model.
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 14/11/2011 | 10:05 uur
Interessant stukje over het gebruik van goedkopere vliegtuigen tegen een zakke tegenstander....Ikzelf zou gaan voor een juiste mix van
Gripen's aangevuld met A-10's en (eventueel Supertucano's).
Het merendeel van de missies zal toch zijn tegen een vijand die niet de capaciteit heeft om op hoog niveau te vechten, tegen tegenstanders als Somalische rebellen, Taliban e.d. de tegenstanders van peacekeeping operations heb je meer aan een langzaam vliegend goedkoop toestel dat klopt. Helikopters zoals de apache zijn vaak te kwetsbaar, maar een supertucano of A-10 zou een prima alternatief zijn.
Het probleem is dat je graag high tech jets wilt hebben voor het geval dat je ze nodig hebt. Als je die vervolgens niet inzet zal er heeeel snel discussie ontstaan over de noodzaak van die kisten. Helaas kun je dan beter die duurdere kisten gebruiken bij een inzet.
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 14/11/2011 | 10:15 uur
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 14/11/2011 | 10:05 uur
Interessant stukje over het gebruik van goedkopere vliegtuigen tegen een zakke tegenstander....Ikzelf zou gaan voor een juiste mix van
Gripen's aangevuld met A-10's en (eventueel Supertucano's).
Het merendeel van de missies zal toch zijn tegen een vijand die niet de capaciteit heeft om op hoog niveau te vechten, tegen tegenstanders als Somalische rebellen, Taliban e.d. de tegenstanders van peacekeeping operations heb je meer aan een langzaam vliegend goedkoop toestel dat klopt. Helikopters zoals de apache zijn vaak te kwetsbaar, maar een supertucano of A-10 zou een prima alternatief zijn.
Het probleem is dat je graag high tech jets wilt hebben voor het geval dat je ze nodig hebt. Als je die vervolgens niet inzet zal er heeeel snel discussie ontstaan over de noodzaak van die kisten. Helaas kun je dan beter die duurdere kisten gebruiken bij een inzet.
Ook mee eens. Ik pleit daarom al langere tijd voor een high-end - low-end mix waarbij de middelen naar omstandigheden worden ingezet.
Tevens ga ik er natuurlijk vanuit dat de volgende "tegenstander" over meer middelen beschikt dan een AK47 of een RPG.
November 14, 2011 (by Eric L. Palmer) - The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has some negative issues that must be watched in the coming years.
USAF pilot Lt. Col. Dwayne Opella and Lockheed Martin test pilot Mark Ward fly F-35A aircraft AF-6 and AF-7 from Edwards AFB for maturity flight software testing on July 15th, 2011.
The F-35 program was recertified last year by the then top U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition official Ashton Carter after its second Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. Besides the effect of looking like a whitewash, there were then and still are, pieces of the puzzle missing.
The first was the program's "Milestone-B" that was pulled at the time of the cost breach. This was earned by the program way back in October 2001. Milestone-B is an approval process that gave permission for funding and the start of the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.
Pulling Milestone-B is like removing the permission for a business to operate. In this case; a business that is burning through billions of dollars of taxpayer cash.
Essentially today, the permission for the program to continue SDD is done by waiver. There is no Milestone-B.
Also missing is a delayed Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting which looks at the deep technical problems and program management competence. It is a critical element that is there to tell Congress that lessons have been learned from problems that caused the Nunn-McCurdy breach. With no DAB, there is no Milestone-B.
Aviation Week's Graham Warwick reported on this a year ago in a piece called, "The F-35 DAB that wasn't".
The DAB, chaired by USD (ATL) [Ashton Carter], met yesterday to review the JSF program. This DAB was scheduled in June, after the JSF program received its Nunn-McCurdy review and recertification. The purpose of the DAB was to present to Dr. Carter the results to date of the TBR [Technical Baseline Review]conducted by the JSF program's new PEO VADM Venlet, to consider production performance and schedules on the production line at Ft. Worth, to review the results of flight testing and software engineering to date, and to address technical issues arising in the program such as structural issues with the STOVL version. This information is being refined and will be the basis for the Department's decisions about what cost and schedule assumptions to make in preparing the FY12 budget. Another DAB will be scheduled at a later date, at which time the resulting program plan will be considered for Milestone B.
To this day, the DAB still has not happened. The problem with no DAB or Milestone-B is that Congress cannot have confidence in the program. This has caused low rate initial production (LRIP) batch 4 to look like "peak production" because the pending LRIP-5 contract contains less aircraft.
Congress has low confidence in the F-35 program.
Other signs of ill-health with the F-35 program is that the U.S. Navy is buying more Super Hornets to fill gaps in their carrier air wings. The United States Air Force (USAF) is in a similar state of affairs. For them the F-35 program is 7 years late compared to the 2001 plan. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for USAF IOC's has been pushed to 2018. USAF now plans to refurbish 350 F-16s to deal with broken promises by the F-35 program.
The U.S. Marines have similar problems. They are now ordering Harrier spare parts and airframes from the U.K. This is an effort to keep something resembling a Harrier capability out to 2025.
All services have a bad perception and capability issue with the F-35. The program will not see Link-16 and Blue Force Tracker until notional Blocks 4 thru 6. These are two necessary capabilities that allow the F-35 to communicate with troops on the ground and other joint forces. Without Link-16 and Blue Force Tracker, the F-35 has little or no worth to a joint coalition commander.
But before that happens, the F-35 has to prove it is even close to being a go-to-war weapon's system. After 10 years of development, the F-35 has not dropped one weapon. Also, software will always be a challenge with the complex F-35. It will have over 3 times the software of an F-22.
There have been new negative discoveries in the program while it operates with no Milestone-B. Wing repairs will have to be done to F-35 A and B models already in different phases of production and delivery. This fix has been described as an expensive and time consuming process.
The fancy helmet that was supposed to display a spherical view around the aircraft via input from sensors placed around the airframe does not work. An alternate helmet is in the works but it has less capability. And, all of this fancy over-sell of technology depends on the massive amounts of software mentioned above.
Worldwide industry is starting to deal with the shock of a significant amount of order cuts in the F-35 program. This chart shows how the F-35 procurement plan is ever progressing in negative trends. Just a few months ago, a prized F-35 parts supplier in Australia was forced to close its doors because of lack of F-35 orders. Industry and investors have to take great care to protect themselves from the loss of revenue from being associated with the F-35 program. One can look at the overly optimistic briefings from years ago pushed on by governments, politicians and rent-seekers and see that this kind of behaviour has caused damage and may continue to do so.
In looking at the warning signs of F-35 program health, governments should be considering how to minimise damage to their defense budgets and industries. If they have not done so already, now would be the time. Before it is too late.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4462.html
Citaat van: dudge op 14/11/2011 | 10:23 uur
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 14/11/2011 | 10:15 uur
Het probleem is dat je graag high tech jets wilt hebben voor het geval dat je ze nodig hebt. Als je die vervolgens niet inzet zal er heeeel snel discussie ontstaan over de noodzaak van die kisten. Helaas kun je dan beter die duurdere kisten gebruiken bij een inzet.
Dat is geen militair nog ecenomisch argument. Helaas is het wel waar dat dit onderdeel is van de praktijk. Als een sterke minister dat kan omzeilen, zou ik zeggen doen.
Maar het is wel een politiek argument. En was oorlog niet voortzetting van politiek met andere middelen ;)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/11/2011 | 10:20 uur
Ook mee eens. Ik pleit daarom al langere tijd voor een high-end - low-end mix waarbij de middelen naar omstandigheden worden ingezet.
Tevens ga ik er natuurlijk vanuit dat de volgende "tegenstander" over meer middelen beschikt dan een AK47 of een RPG.
Ik ben het wel met je eens hoor, maar is de Nederlandse luchtmacht inmiddels niet gewoon veeeeel te klein waardoor we gewoon keihard te weinig high tech jets hebben wanneer we een mix gaan maken? Begin jaren '90 was een mix nog wel zinvol maar nu zitten we al ver onder het absolute minimum.
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 14/11/2011 | 10:48 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/11/2011 | 10:20 uur
Ook mee eens. Ik pleit daarom al langere tijd voor een high-end - low-end mix waarbij de middelen naar omstandigheden worden ingezet.
Tevens ga ik er natuurlijk vanuit dat de volgende "tegenstander" over meer middelen beschikt dan een AK47 of een RPG.
Ik ben het wel met je eens hoor, maar is de Nederlandse luchtmacht inmiddels niet gewoon veeeeel te klein waardoor we gewoon keihard te weinig high tech jets hebben wanneer we een mix gaan maken? Begin jaren '90 was een mix nog wel zinvol maar nu zitten we al ver onder het absolute minimum.
Op het gevaar af om gecorrigeerd te worden door het forum beheer.... (we zijn immers een een nieuw topic gestart om de Klu discussie meer duidelijk te houden)
Helaas zijn > 200 fighters geen optie meer :'(
Mijn Klu zou bestaan uit:
40 gevechtsvliegtuigen
20 CAS (A10C)
20 UCAV
En met deze kleine aantallen is het wel zorg dat het operationeel is en blijft.
Een economisch argument is het zeker wel !, de vlieguren voor een Tucano zijn veel goedkoper dan een bv een F-15/F-18/Eurofighter/F-35
...en een Supertucano kost een fractie van wat een F-35 kost.
Dus het is handig om zegmaar 16 van die kleine toestelltjes in je luchtmacht te hebben , ze kosten weinig en als je ze nodig hebt tijdens een missie in een lager spectrum, dan ga je eigenlijk vanzelf verdienen ! (want je gaat minder uitgeven om zo'n missie uit te voeren)
In Afghanistan en Irak zijn deze toestellen hartstikke handig en ze kunnen gewoon lekker goedkoop in de lucht blijven hangen om ondersteuning te bieden. Of vanaf vliegvelden dichtbij opstijgen omdat moderne vliegvelden hiervoor niet nodig zijn..een landigstrip van zand / gras is al voldoende. Hierdoor is ondersteuning ook sneller ter plaatse voor de jongens op de grond ! dus is het ook een militair en economisch voordeel.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/11/2011 | 10:42 uur
Worldwide industry is starting to deal with the shock of a significant amount of order cuts in the F-35 program. This chart shows how the F-35 procurement plan is ever progressing in negative trends. Just a few months ago, a prized F-35 parts supplier in Australia was forced to close its doors because of lack of F-35 orders. Industry and investors have to take great care to protect themselves from the loss of revenue from being associated with the F-35 program. One can look at the overly optimistic briefings from years ago pushed on by governments, politicians and rent-seekers and see that this kind of behaviour has caused damage and may continue to do so.
In looking at the warning signs of F-35 program health, governments should be considering how to minimise damage to their defense budgets and industries. If they have not done so already, now would be the time. Before it is too late.
This chart van productie aantallen en hoe deze zijn bijgesteld jaar na jaar na jaar.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5FHeVxop-zc/TqNos2ZraKI/AAAAAAAABpI/mASKML9A0YQ/s1600/F35productionCutsHistoryJPEG.jpg
Het JSF-programma loopt 7 jaar achter ten opzichte van de planning in 2001
De
onderstreepte waarschuwing is (lijkt mij) duidelijk !!
Tegen 10 flessen wijn... wedden dat de Fransen hoofdpijn hebben...
DUBAI: Boeing throws F-15, F/A-18 into UAE fighter modernisation mix
A top Boeing executive has added a new piece to the UAE's fighter modernisation puzzle, saying that the US government has delivered classified briefings about the capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-15E Strike Eagle.
Neither aircraft has been mentioned in the past as among the options for replacing the UAE air force's fleet of Dassault Mirage 2000-9s. The UAE has been negotiating with France for the Dassault Rafale since 2008, and within the last two weeks asked the Eurofighter Typhoon to submit a rival bid.
But UAE officials are still casting an even wider net as they consider all of their fighter modernisation requirements, said Jeff Kohler, Boeing vice-president of military business development.
In August or September, the UAE formally requested classified briefings on the F-15 and F/A-18, Kohler said, which the US government obliged.
The briefings were not followed by the issuing of a request for proposals from Boeing, as Eurofighter has received. However, Kohler believes the UAE's interests in the Boeing fighters may be aimed at long-term requirements.
On 12 November, the UAE air force announced plans to acquire a "next generation fighter" in the 2018-2025 timeframe.
The Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighter (JSF) has been previously named by the UAE as a potential acquisition target. But briefing requests may indicate that the F/A-18E/F and the F-15 Silent Eagle are also in the discussion, Kohler said. With the exception of all-aspect very low observability, or stealth, the F-15SE and F/A-18E/F international roadmap variant share many of the same sensor, avionics and weapons capabilities with the F-35.
"I think [UAE officials] would be interested, depending on exactly what they want," Kohler said.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-boeing-throws-f-15-fa-18-into-uae-fighter-modernisation-mix-364787/
Die 10 flessen ..... zijn leeg ... de Fransen hebben deze al opgemaakt .... oooo wat een kater......
De UAE speelt hoog spel, maar speelt het spel goed, slim .... de UAE heeft tijd genoeg, staat niet onder tijdsdruk.
en de aanbieders kunnen allemaal een order goed gebruiken, dus alle optie's zijn weer mogelijk ?
AIRSHOW-France positive on UAE Rafale deal despite competition
By Mahmoud Habboush
DUBAI | Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:44am EST
Nov 14 (Reuters) - The United Arab Emirates' request for technical details on the Typhoon combat jet built by European arms consortium Eurofighter has not shaken France's confidence in securing a deal to sell the Gulf state more than French 60 Rafale warplanes, the French air chief told Reuters on Monday.
"Getting information on different systems is fine," General Jean-Paul Palomeros said on Sunday on the sidelines of the Dubai Air Show. "I know that the Emirates air force is very keen with Rafale, that's for sure because they told me that they like the aircraft, they know how operational it is."
The European arms consortium Eurofighter briefed UAE officials last month on the Typhoon combat jet, in a surprise overture likely to disappoint France as it tries to finalise a sale of Dassault's Rafale at the Dubai Air Show this week.
In 2010, the UAE was reported to have requested technical details on Boeing F/A-18 war plane as well.
France is struggling to secure a foreign buyer for the aircraft, which is more developed than fourth generation combat aircraft but lags behind fifth generation multi-role fighters such as Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II.
The United Arab Emirates has pressed for the aircraft's engines to be upgraded with extra thrust and for better radar, industry sources have said, but Palomeros said UAE officials are satisfied with the plane.
"In terms of operational requirements, our friends in the Emirates air force are very happy," Palomeros said.
He said the Rafale was the first aircraft to engage in NATO operations in Libya that helped topple Muammar Gaddafi.
Experts following the deal said that it was possible that the two countries are trapped in a bargaining loop.
French officials have made several positive statements about the prospects of signing a deal, but UAE officials have remained tight-lipped.
But the UAE's former air force chief, Major General Khaled al-Buainnain, said he believed the current discussions were more about the cost of the aircraft rather than technical details.
"There's no required enhancements," al-Buainnain said on Saturday. "The UAE has always special requirements. I think the enhancement issue is over, the issue is now financial and contractual. This is a massive project that needs deliberate study."
General Faouzi Abou Farhat, a former senior official of Lebanon's air force, said the Rafale was more expensive than similar warplanes available for sale such at the Typhoon and F-16.
"The issue is they can't agree on a price," he said.
The UAE said in 2008 it was in negotiations with France to buy at least 60 Rafale warplanes to replace its fleet of Mirage-2000-9 warplanes, in a deal that could be worth 10 billion euros, according to experts.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/14/dubai-airshow-rafale-idUSL5E7ME17I20111114
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/11/2011 | 10:55 uur
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 14/11/2011 | 10:48 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/11/2011 | 10:20 uur
Ook mee eens. Ik pleit daarom al langere tijd voor een high-end - low-end mix waarbij de middelen naar omstandigheden worden ingezet.
Tevens ga ik er natuurlijk vanuit dat de volgende "tegenstander" over meer middelen beschikt dan een AK47 of een RPG.
Ik ben het wel met je eens hoor, maar is de Nederlandse luchtmacht inmiddels niet gewoon veeeeel te klein waardoor we gewoon keihard te weinig high tech jets hebben wanneer we een mix gaan maken? Begin jaren '90 was een mix nog wel zinvol maar nu zitten we al ver onder het absolute minimum.
Op het gevaar af om gecorrigeerd te worden door het forum beheer.... (we zijn immers een een nieuw topic gestart om de Klu discussie meer duidelijk te houden)
Helaas zijn > 200 fighters geen optie meer :'(
Mijn Klu zou bestaan uit:
40 gevechtsvliegtuigen
20 CAS (A10C)
20 UCAV
En met deze kleine aantallen is het wel zorg dat het operationeel is en blijft.
@Jurrien,
A-10C revolutionizes close air support
http://air-attack.com/news/article/3039/02-22-2008-A-10C-revolutionizes-close-air-support.html
Citaat van: Harald op 14/11/2011 | 11:45 uur
Die 10 flessen ..... zijn leeg ... de Fransen hebben deze al opgemaakt .... oooo wat een kater......
De UAE speelt hoog spel, maar speelt het spel goed, slim .... de UAE heeft tijd genoeg, staat niet onder tijdsdruk.
en de aanbieders kunnen allemaal een order goed gebruiken, dus alle optie's zijn weer mogelijk ?
Chateau migraine? ;)
Tests Confirm JSOW Fits F-35 JSF
Dubai Air Show » November 15, 2011
by David Donald
Raytheon has successfully completed fit-checks for the AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapon in the internal carriage bay of the Lockheed Martin F-35.
November 14, 2011, 5:36 AM
Raytheon has successfully completed fit-checks for the AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW C-1) in the internal carriage bay of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The checks ensured that the weapon fitted into the bay with sufficient clearance for the doors to operate unhindered.
JSOW C-1 will add a significant attack capability to the JSF's repertoire. It is the latest member of the modular JSOW family, and Raytheon claims it is the world's first net-enabled standoff weapon. The weapon uses an integrated GPS inertial navigation system with imaging infrared terminal guidance, and has been used widely in combat in both its AGM-154A version (with combined effects warhead) and the AGM-154C (with a unitary Broach warhead). The weapon is unpowered, but has a glide range of over 60 miles.
Also known as JSOW Block III, the C-1 version was developed using company funds and adds a two-way strike common data link. This gives the weapon a maritime moving target capability, enabling it to perform anti-ship attacks as well as its primary land-attack duties. The first free-flight test was performed on July 26 this year, the weapon being launched from a Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet.
Separately, Raytheon has developed a wireless interface for the Enhanced Paveway dual-mode (GPS/IMU and laser) guided bomb, enabling the weapon to be carried by aircraft that cannot currently support it without major wiring modifications and changes to the stores management system.
Called WiPak, the system comprises a small wireless transmitter and pilot interface in the cockpit, and a small receiver unit on the Paveway weapon. They connect using technology similar to that employed in consumer devices.
WiPak has completed testing, and has already been integrated into the Embraer Super Tucano light attack aircraft. Raytheon is now working on testing and deploying WiPak on other aircraft types.
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-14/tests-confirm-jsow-fits-f-35-jsf
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/11/2011 | 18:09 uur
Tests Confirm JSOW Fits F-35 JSF
Raytheon has successfully completed fit-checks for the AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW C-1) in the internal carriage bay of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The checks ensured that the weapon fitted into the bay with sufficient clearance for the doors to operate unhindered.
Geweldig, fantastisch, super .... dus 1 JSOW in de linkerbay en 1 in de rechterbay.
En hoeveel amraam's en sidewinders kunnen er allemaal nog bij in de weaponsbay's ??? ......... 1 links en 1 rechts, totaal 2 stuks.... oooo.. :hrmph:
de rest moet dan maar extern opgehangen worden.... oeps .... weg Stealth...
de JSOW kan alleen intern meegenomen worden in een F-35A en C, niet in een F-35B. Bij dit type is de weaponsbay ca. 30 cm kleiner, dit is een gevolg van een ontwerpverandering in 2004.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml
Citaat van: Harald op 14/11/2011 | 20:33 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/11/2011 | 18:09 uur
Tests Confirm JSOW Fits F-35 JSF
Raytheon has successfully completed fit-checks for the AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW C-1) in the internal carriage bay of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The checks ensured that the weapon fitted into the bay with sufficient clearance for the doors to operate unhindered.
Geweldig, fantastisch, super .... dus 1 JSOW in de linkerbay en 1 in de rechterbay.
En hoeveel amraam's en sidewinders kunnen er allemaal nog bij in de weaponsbay's ??? ......... 1 links en 1 rechts, totaal 2 stuks.... oooo.. :hrmph:
de rest moet dan maar extern opgehangen worden.... oeps .... weg Stealth...
de JSOW kan alleen intern meegenomen worden in een F-35A en C, niet in een F-35B. Bij dit type is de weaponsbay ca. 30 cm kleiner, dit is een gevolg van een ontwerpverandering in 2004.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml
Is het niet geweldig.... een aanvalsvlucht (in het begin van een high tech conflict) met 2 x een F35 die JSOW intern dragen zal dus altijd begeleidt moeten worden door JSF's die uitsluitend een A2A configuratie met zich mee dragen (of onder dekking van F22's)
Waarbij duidelijk is geworden dat met een maximale snelheid van mach 1.6 het een slecht hazenpad kiezen is.
Een F35 bewapend met 2 x (interne) amraam is dus de l*l als deze als solokist geconfronteerd wordt met 3 antieke Mig 21's... de F35 pakt er 2 en is daarna is hij de klos. (zodra de weaponsbay open is voor lancering is de kist vast prima te zien)
Het beste wapen tegen de F35 is dus een numeriek overwicht.
Ik wil gaarne dit onderwerp (http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/het_correct_citeren_van_berichten-t21076.0.html) onder uw aller aandacht brengen.
Dank voor uw medewerking.
Lex
Algeheel beheerder
Major Fighter Competition Decisions Imminent
Nov 14, 2011
By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
DUBAI
Even as the United Arab Emirates' fighter modernization program has taken a new turn into uncertainty, it is becoming increasingly apparent that next month could see an unusual flurry of big-ticket procurement announcements in Switzerland, Japan and India as well as the Persian Gulf.
Several long-running fighter competitions could be brought to a conclusion, and Switzerland's is likely to be the first. In early to mid-December, the Swiss government is expected to announce the winner of the F-5 replacement program, according to several industry officials. The competition involves the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen.
Also pending is a downselect by the government of Japan, where the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are under consideration. That decision is also expected around mid-December.
Another contract that could be awarded before year-end is that to build India's Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA). The Rafale and Typhoon remain in the running. Among the impending selections, the MMRCA deal is for the largest number of aircraft, with a minimum purchase of 126 expected.
However, one government official notes that India's decision could still slip into 2012 because the two contenders' pricing is very similar, so the industrial participation package is being scrutinized.
One wild card in the lineup of decisions is what the United Arab Emirates will do. French officials say they still expect to secure the first export order for the Rafale in a deal with the UAE this year. That comes despite the UAE government's issuing of a "thin" request for proposals (RFP) to the U.K. government to garner more data on the Typhoon.
U.K. officials believe the U.S. also received an RFP for the F/A-18E/F and perhaps the F-15, although U.S. officials so far will not confirm that.
However, Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, says the U.S. government has provided F-15 and F/A-18E/F briefings to the UAE this year in support of a potential sale. "We are pleased to have the opportunity to compete," he adds.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/11/14/awx_11_14_2011_p0-393913.xml&headline=Decisions%20Imminent%20On%20Major%20Fighter%20Competitions
Eurofighter, Rafale or Neither for UAE?
Dubai Air Show » November 15, 2011
by Chris Pocock
French air force commander Jean-Paul Palomeros said the Dassault Rafale still has a good chance in the UAE fighter jet competition.
November 14, 2011, 11:13 AM
Has the Eurofighter Typhoon really unseated Dassault's Rafale as the UAE Air Force's fighter-of-choice for a 60-plane order? After last week's leak that the Typhoon team has received a surprise request for proposal (RFP) that would effectively re-open the contest, the French have maintained a certain insouciance after their top brass met the Emirati hierarchy here at the Dubai Air Show on Sunday.
Meanwhile, the Americans know nothing about a formal RFP being issued, leaving observers to speculate that the two-page request for the Typhoon issued to the UK last week will serve only as a stalking horse, as negotiations for the Rafale continue, or even conclude successfully.
The French delegation to the Sunday meeting included defense minister Gerard Longuet and Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Edouard Guillard. French air force commander Jean-Paul Palomeros subsequently told AIN: "The Rafale is our fifth-generation fighter, and we are eager to share this future with the UAE." He added that, "Discussions are going well, and they are happy with what they see." Longuet was quoted here yesterday as remaining confident that the UAE would sign for the Rafale by the end of the year. Dassault refused to comment on the negotiations.
According to Palomeros, the UAE's earlier concern that the Rafale's two Snecma M88 turbofan engines were not powerful enough had been overcome. Two years ago, Dassault told AIN that the Rafale has demonstrated that it could take off from a hot Al Dhafra airbase here with a full long-range strike combat mission load (two Scalp ASMs and three fuel tanks), with the existing 17,000-pound-thrust engines. Palomeros said the negotiations are now about the cost of maintenance and manpower. The French defense ministry has also been negotiating a costed, long-term support contract with Snecma for the M88.
The French have been reluctant to fund some other upgrades to the Rafale that were sought by the UAE. But Palomeros said, "We would like to achieve a common standard, and invest in new capabilities." He mentioned systems (the UAE has sought additional radar modes), electronic warfare and, especially, communications. "They are not buying an aircraft, they are buying a system, and France is a real partner," he added.
There is no indication that the UAE has decided to widen its search for a new fighter to U.S. candidates, notably the F-15 and the F-18, on which it previously received classified briefings. Eurofighter said that it received an RFP after giving a formal briefing on the Typhoon to the UAE last month. It was "working hard to deliver a response."
In addition to the Typhoon model painted in the colors of the UAE aerobatic team, the Eurofighter pavilion here also features a full-scale model of the MBDA Marte ER (extended range) anti-ship missile. This turbojet-powered weapon has not previously been associated with the Typhoon, and is not scheduled for integration by the four partner nations.
MBDA unveiled the Marte ER two years ago as a helicopter-borne weapon with two rocket boosters for launch. They are deleted from the possible Typhoon-launched version, which AIN understands has been proposed to India as an alternative to the Saab Rbs15 that is Eurofighter's baseline proposal to meet the anti-ship requirement in the MMRCA competition. It is not known whether the UAE requires an anti-ship missile on its new fighter, but the latest version of Rafale can already be equipped with the AM39 Exocet Block 2.
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-14/eurofighter-rafale-or-neither-uae
EADS 'serious offer' of Eurofighters to UAE
(AFP) – 5 hours ago
LONDON — The European Aeronautic Defence Space Company (EADS) is preparing a "serious offer" to supply 60 Eurofighter jets to the United Arab Emirates, boss Louis Gallois told Tuesday's Financial Times.
EADS is the main shareholder in Eurofighter -- the consortium maker of the Typhoon -- which confirmed on Sunday that the Gulf state had put in a "request for proposal" after attending a briefing on the aircraft's capabilities.
Other members of the consortium include BAE Systems of Britain and Finmeccanica of Italy.
Speaking on the sidelines of the Dubai Airshow, EADS chief executive Gallois also apologised to shareholders and customers for a six-month delay in delivery of Airbus's long-haul A350 aircraft.
The executive said it was "never good to be late" but extra time was needed to "stop and fix" the issue and to ensure it brought "mature components to the assembly line".
EADS, Airbus' parent company, vowed that the fuel-efficient twin-jet, which it hopes will compete with Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, will now enter service in the first half of 2014 rather than the end of 2013 as previously announced.
Both the A350 and the 787 are made with modern composite materials such as carbon fibre glass that reduce weight and drag, leading to greater fuel economy.
Boeing's tie-up with Gulf carrier Emirates on Sunday has been the main talking point of Dubai's showpiece aviation event.
The $18 billion-deal to supply 50 777 aircraft represents the US manufacturer's largest ever commercial aircraft order.
Gallois said the agreement proved the aviation industry was "alive" despite economic chaos in Europe.
Kuwaiti aircraft leaser ALAFCO on Monday increased an order with Airbus for its A320 Neo to 50 in a $4.6 billion-deal (3.4 billion euros).
EADS, which makes Airbus passenger jets and European Ariane satellite launchers, was founded in 2000 from a merger of French, German and Spanish aerospace companies.
Gallois said he remained optimistic that a deal could be hammered out with Germany over plans to cut the number of military helicopters it was set to purchase from the company.
"I think we could find an agreement with the German government," he told the business broadsheet.
Copyright © 2011 AFP.
DUBAI: UAE air force outlines fighter, UCAV ambitions
By: Craig Hoyle Dubai
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Air Force and Air Defence has outlined a long-term acquisition strategy that includes fielding a next-generation fighter and an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) between 2018 and 2025.
Both requirements were revealed for the first time at the Dubai International Air Chiefs' Conference on 12 November during a presentation by deputy air force chief Maj Gen Ibrahim Naser al-Alawi.
The UAE has been one of the world's biggest spenders on combat aircraft over the last 10 years, and is close to acquiring new batches of fighters, trainers, air control aircraft, airlifters and armed helicopters.
Al-Alawi's presentation made clear that the air force has no intention of slowing its modernisation, even after completing its current list of planned acquisitions.
According to al-Alawi, the next major requirement for the UAE will be the acquisition before 2013 of an unarmed unmanned air system (UAS) for intelligence gathering. The UAE is known to be actively considering the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' Predator XP and the Turkish Aerospace Industries' (TAI) Anka.
Its next priority will be setting up an air operations centre in 2013 and a terminal high-altitude area defence missile system shortly afterwards.
Beyond those are even more ambitious requirements.
The UAE's air force operates the world's most advanced version of the Lockheed Martin F-16, and is negotiating a deal with France to buy as many as 60 Dassault Rafales. Al-Alawi's presentation did not address the ongoing talks on the Rafale, but he confirmed the UAE's long-term interests in acquiring a next-generation fighter. The new aircraft would be introduced in the 2018 timeframe, according to a briefing slide shown during his presentation.
Al-Alawi did not reveal details of the UAE's requirements for the next-generation fighter. However, two years ago at the same event, he revealed the UAE's interest in buying fifth-generation fighter technology. Images of the Lockheed F-35 and F-22 were included in the 2009 briefing, although the latter aircraft is scheduled to cease production in a few months.
The US government has never formally offered the F-35 to the UAE, but in 2007, the F-35 joint programme office included the UAE on a briefing slide showing potential buyers of the aircraft, along with Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the region.
Al-Alawi did not directly address the ongoing competition between the Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and Boeing 737 airborne early warning and control system aircraft for a UAE contract. But al-Alawi's briefing slides twice showed an image of the E-2 to represent an "air control" platform of the future.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-uae-air-force-outlines-fighter-ucav-ambitions-364692/
Report: Lockheed still lagging on some F-35 targets
Lockheed Martin is improving its performance building F-35 fighter jets but is still struggling to meet Pentagon targets for manufacturing efficiency and aircraft reliability, Bloomberg News reports.
Reducing delays and increasing efficiency of manufacturing and assembly operations is a key factor in holding down cost increases on the F-35. Lockheed has overrun Pentagon budgets for the first three lots of production aircraft by more than $1 billion, in addition to cost increases and delays in the development and testing program.
Lockheed, according to a report to Congress obtained by Bloomberg, was close to meeting the 2011 goal for reducing the amount of time it takes to assemble an aircraft. As of Aug. 31, assembly time was 29 months, compared to a goal of 27.
But the amount of time required to perform out-of-sequence work -- install parts that should have been accomplished earlier in the assembly process -- was 600 hours, 20 percent above the goal of 500 hours. Delayed completion of work is a major reason for rising costs, as aircraft often must be partially disassembled and then reassembled. Lockheed also has not met the government's target for time spent repairing faulty work.
The report also indicates that the reliability of F-35 test and early production aircraft is not meeting the desired targets.
The report comes as Department of Defense officials are trying to force Lockheed to agree to share in future cost overruns beginning with the fifth lot of 30 airplanes. A contract for production of those airplanes has yet to be negotiated and Lockheed officials have complained about the Pentagon's plans for sharing in cost overruns.
Lockheed and the Pentagon negotiated a fixed price contract on the fourth production lot of planes, awarded in late 2010, with cost sharing on production cost overruns. But the Pentagon also wants Lockheed, in addition to production costs, to share in the cost of fixing the airplanes when changes are required to solve new problems discovered in the flight test program - so called concurrency costs.
The 15-page Oct. 28 report, signed by Frank Kendall, acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, was sent to the four congressional defense committees. It wasn't released to the public. Bloomberg News obtained the report, which is a snapshot of progress through Aug.31 and isn't intended as the final annual report card.
Lockheed spokeswoman Laurie Quincy, in an e-mail, said the aircraft "continues to make excellent overall progress, demonstrating an ongoing reduction of technical risk over time, as well as a methodical maturing of processes and systems --including a reduction in non-conformance hours when an assembly or part does not meet engineering requirements."
Congress, in the fiscal 2011 defense bill, required the Pentagon to set up annual milestones for measuring F-35 "design, manufacturing, testing and fielding."
Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/11/14/3525528/report-lockheed-still-lagging.html#ixzz1dleSDGIl
Om een F-35 in elkaar te zetten, zijn ze 29 maanden meebezig, zeg maar 2,5 - 3 jaar
Als je een bestelling doet, voordat deze inpructie gaat, duurt ?? .. 1 jaar (schatting)
Het opwerken van je vliegers en toestellen in je squadrons tot volledig Combat-ready duurt ?? .. 2 jaar (schatting)
dus al met al ben je 6 jaar onderweg, van bestelling tot combat-ready, is dit een juiste conclusie ?
zonder rekening te houden met extra vertragingen e.d.
Panetta Says Budget Cuts May Kill Lockheed's F-35 Jet
Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham that defense budget cuts of as much as $1 trillion may lead to the termination of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 jet.
In a letter today to the two Republican lawmakers, Panetta said reductions beyond the $450 billion, 10-year defense budget cuts already planned would reduce the "size of the military sharply."
If a special committee of lawmakers fails to reach agreement on U.S. deficit reduction, that would trigger a so- called sequestration. That would involve at least another $500 billion in defense cuts over a decade and reduce Pentagon programs in 2013 by 23 percent if the president exercises his authority to exempt military personnel, Panetta said.
Panetta said such funding reductions might lead to termination of major programs such as Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, major space initiatives, silo-based U.S. nuclear missiles and ground combat vehicle modernization.
Such cuts also would damage shipbuilding and construction projects, and cause termination of the Littoral Combat Ship, Panetta wrote.
"You cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building," he wrote the lawmakers urging them to ensure that Congress finds deficit reduction through other means.
Nov. 23 Deadline
A congressional supercommittee, seeking at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions, has until Nov. 23 to get an agreement. If Congress fails to approve the panel's plan, federal spending would be cut automatically, including about $500 billion from the Defense Department, not including interest.
The sequestration would call for the reduction of as much as $100 billion a year from the Pentagon's "topline" projections, starting in 2013, Panetta said.
The Pentagon as recently as February anticipated spending $571 billion in 2013, or 1 percent real growth over the fiscal $553 billion basic request. The projections grow to $611 billion in 2016.
Pentagon budget planners now anticipate the Office of Management and Budget may allow only about $522.5 billion annually in 2014-2017, according to Defense Department data. The estimates are calculated in fiscal 2011 dollars and don't assume sequestration.
The projections assume war funding of $50 billion in 2014, $30 billion in 2016 and $20 billion in 2017. That's down from $117 billion proposed this fiscal year.
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the Pentagon's budget may be cut by $882 billion through 2021, starting with $83 billion in 2013, increasing to $91 billion in 2016 and $110 billion in 2021.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-14/panetta-says-budget-cuts-may-lead-to-lockheed-s-f-35-termination.html
Citaat van: dudge op 15/11/2011 | 13:15 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 15/11/2011 | 13:11 uur
Panetta Says Budget Cuts May Kill Lockheed's F-35 Jet
Leuke manier om steun te krijgen, deze minister vecht tenminste voor zijn budget. Hoe dan ook, geloof er niks van dat de F35 van het toneel zal verdwijnen. Het aantal te bestellen toestellen zal nog wel naar beneden worden bijgesteld. Met een prijs van meer dan 200 miljoen per stuk kan dat ook bijna niet anders.
is het nu dan al 200 miljoen dollar per stuk voor een F-35 ?
Marines Will Fight for F-35B to the Bitter End
Recent reports about the Marine Corps buying the U.K. Royal Navy's castoff Harrier jump jets are viewed as a sign that Marines are seeing the writing on the wall and hedging against the possible delay or even termination of the Harrier replacement, the F-35B.
The Corps, according to the Navy Times, is buying 74 AV-8 Harriers from the United Kingdom, which is retiring its entire fleet.
Whether this decision implies that Marines are preparing for the worst — the termination of F-35B — is the subject of speculation. The fate of F-35B, to be sure, is far from certain. But what cannot be put in doubt is the Marine Corps' determination to save the vertical takeoff and landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter from the budget ax.
The Corps' dogged insistence that F-35B is essential to its future as an expeditionary force that can deploy large ground forces from ships has drawn some criticism. Some analysts have questioned why the identity of a service should be tied to particular programs. Marines had made a similar argument over the amphibious Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which was terminated last year.
Retired Marine lieutenant colonel and former military analyst Dakota Wood has said weapons advocacy has gone too far. "Our weapons system is the Marine," Wood told Peter W. Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative and a senior fellow at Brookings.
Singer also has called out the Marine Corps for not being open to alternatives. In an interview, Singer said that the rising costs of F-35B are a huge problem for the Marine Corps with budget cuts on the horizon. "We have to start thinking about defense cuts beyond aye-or-nay on individual weapon systems," he said. "Instead of framing every question about which program to eliminate or not we should do 'budget war gaming' - ask what alternative force mixes might give commanders more effective tools for a wider set of contingencies."
On the F-35B, specifically, "Why aren't we looking at more flexible options?" he asked. Singer estimated that for the same price of 13 F-35s, the Corps could buy a mix of eight F-35s, two F/A-18 Growlers, four Reaper and one Global Hawk drones, and still have an extra $180 million. "Theater commanders might prefer a more flexible mix," said Singer.
He cannot predict what will happen with the Joint Strike Fighter, but he said Marines would be wise to have alternatives. "The political environment and the problems that the system has had means there is a strong likelihood that that choice [termination] may happen," he said. "I wish the system was cheaper" because it could be argued that it brings more value than the conventional version of the JSF, which requires long runways and bases, and cannot take off from ships. "But we don't make decisions that way," said Singer.
One of the Marine Corps' staunchest supporters of the F-35B, Maj. Gen. Melvin G. Spiese, takes exception to the idea that the Corps weds its identity to specific programs. But he acknowledged that, ultimately, the ability of the Marine Corps to do its job "gets down to programs, as our capabilities become manifested in the tools we choose to employ them," Spiese said in an email to National Defense.
Spiese, who is deputy commanding general of I Marine Expeditionary Force, at Camp Pendleton, Calif., agreed that the Marine Corps' strength is not about "a program" but a "package of capabilities."
At some point, he said, the Marine Corps' amphibious capabilities in World War II came down to programs.
"Although the F-35B is not the be all and end all for the Marine Corps, it is the only viable option for short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) strike aircraft replacement available," said Spiese. "In the end, it may not specifically be F-35B that is essential to the Marine Air Ground Task Force, but I believe STOVL strike aviation writ large is a critical element."
The commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James Amos often points out that F-35B doubles the number of "large deck aircraft carriers" available to the Defense Department and opens available airfields around the world by an order of magnitude, said Spiese. "The operational implications are almost limitless."
One of the Corps' biggest fears is that losing the F-35B will be the beginning of the end of Marine aviation as separate and unique from the other services.
Spiese said the "joint solution" to strike aviation works in periods of unmatched U.S. airpower and unlimited aircraft availability. "When conditions and circumstances are not that way, as is often the case in time sensitive crisis response, theaters that have not had years of development or maturation, situations where countries will not allow bases located within them to be used or permit overflight, then things change."
Without some critical programs, said Spiese, "particularly those unique to the Marine Corps and its way of war, then we can argue to what degree we are the Marine Corps, as opposed to a slight variation of someone else."
Posted at 8:59 AM by Sandra Erwin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=589
De druk neemt dus toe op de Marines om af te zien van de B variant...ergens kan ik het wel begrijpen dat ze blijven vasthouden aan hun eisen.
Ik heb het trouwens altijd raar gevonden dat er gezien het aantal landen zoals Engeland, Spanje , india en de US er nooit een geheel nieuwe Harrier ontworpen is...met als basis het oude model..een soort doorontwikkeling zoals Volkswagen met de Golf en Passat doet.
Er moet toch een mooie afzet markt zijn voor zo'n toestel. Nu hebben ze gekozen om vanuit de F-35 een B variant te ontwikkelen en dat gaat
dus veel te veel kosten..en er komt zo een onbetaalbaar toestel.
De Mariniers hebben trouwens ook al afgezien van dat snelle amphibische pantser voertuig dat ook al te duur zou uitvallen.
Panetta: Pentagon Will Cancel F-35 If Supercommittee Failure Triggers Automatic Cuts; Thousands of CT Jobs At Stake
Comments 0Share0
By MARA LEE maralee@courant.com
1:43 p.m. EST, November 15, 2011
The Pentagon would end the Joint Strike Fighter program, imperiling thousands of Connecticut jobs, if the "automatic trigger" of defense cuts kicked in following a breakdown of the bipartisan federal deficit supercommittee, Defense secretary Leon Panetta told two U.S. Senators who are pro-military spending.
Pratt & Whitney makes the engines for the F-35 JSF, which is in early production, ramping up in the next few years. The program this year has supported 1,400 Pratt employees in Connecticut and about 450 at suppliers in the state.
The United Technologies Corp. division estimated that at full production, there would be 4,250 Connecticut workers on the project, both at the company and its suppliers.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Panetta to explain what exactly would happen with cuts of that magnitude. Panetta had already testified that such cuts would be like "shooting ourselves in the head."
Monday, Panetta replied to the senators with a list of cuts, including two that would have massive impacts on Connecticut factories.
Panetta said the cuts would force the Pentagon to end the Joint Strike Fighter program. Engines for the Joint Strike Fighter are assembled in Middletown, and hundreds of the state's factories make parts for the engines. There were supposed to be 3,650 engines ordered over the next 20 years.
In February, Pratt Military Engines Spokeswoman Stephanie Duvall said within six years, Pratt would add 1,000 people for JSF work, and its suppliers would add 1,400, in addition to those already working on the F135 engine for the F-35 aircraft.
Panetta also told the senators that the automatic trigger of defense cuts would result in a delay to the Trident submarine replacement, and the Navy would cut the number of those future nuclear-armed submarines to 10. The contract has not yet been granted to replace the Trident, known as the Ohio class.
Electric Boat in Groton, which shares the contract for the smaller subs in the Virginia class, made all the Trident submarines now in service.
Some question whether the "automatic trigger" will really be so automatic. Because there's a year before the cuts would begin, there could be time, even after a possible supercommittee failure this month, to reach compromise on raising taxes and cutting spending.
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-panetta-defense-cuts-connecticut-20111115-7,0,915192.story
UH-1Y, AH-1Z cuts could help pay for F-35
By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Nov 15, 2011 12:48:12 EST
As the defense budget begins to fall, the Marine Corps is struggling to balance its aviation portfolio in internal budget deliberations, one senior defense official said. Two programs that might suffer are the Marines' UH-1Y utility and AH-1Z attack helicopters.
"The UH-1Y and AH-1Z programs are exceedingly successful," one senior defense official said. But "the [Department of the Navy] is looking to make them bill payers once again to help pay for [F-35B Joint Strike Fighter] overrun costs."
.......
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/11/marine-ah1-uh1-helo-programs-may-be-cut-111511/
De berichten van de Gannet group, zoals army times/navy times etc. zijn beschermd door het copyright, zoals vastgelegd in de VS.
Gezien eerdere problemen, is het toegestaan om vijftig (50) woorden te gebruiken, gevolgd door de link naar het bericht.
Verzoeke daar gevolg aan te geven.
Lex
Algeheel beheerder
ooooooo ok, als ze het niet gewoon kunnen winnen.
Dan gaan we maar dreigen ... als jullie het mes zetten in of de stekker uit het JSF-programma halen hebben jullie het verlies aan banen op jullie geweten. Eens kijken of ze in het congres daar gevoelig voor zijn.
Ja, er zullen wel meer werklozen erbij komen. Maar als de JSF er niet komt, zal er meer upgrades komen voor F-16 en F-15, F-18
Of nieuwe toestellen ... in iedergeval nieuwe F-18E/F voor de Navy.
en daar zullen ook werknemers voor nodig zijn
Pratt & Whitney is hofleverancier voor de USAF duss.......
Pratt & Whitney's military engines include the F119 for the F-22 Raptor, the F100 family that powers the F-15 and F-16, the F117 for the C-17 Globemaster III, the J52 for the EA-6B Prowler, TF30 for the F-111, and the TF33 powering AWACS, Joint STARS, B-52, and KC-135 aircraft
Citaat van: Harald op 15/11/2011 | 23:59 uur
ooooooo ok, als ze het niet gewoon kunnen winnen.
Dan gaan we maar dreigen ... als jullie het mes zetten in of de stekker uit het JSF-programma halen hebben jullie het verlies aan banen op jullie geweten. Eens kijken of ze in het congres daar gevoelig voor zijn.
Ja, er zullen wel meer werklozen erbij komen. Maar als de JSF er niet komt, zal er meer upgrades komen voor F-16 en F-15, F-18
Of nieuwe toestellen ... in iedergeval nieuwe F-18E/F voor de Navy.
en daar zullen ook werknemers voor nodig zijn
The Pentagon would end the Joint Strike Fighter program, imperiling thousands of Connecticut jobs, if the "automatic trigger" of defense cuts kicked in following a breakdown of the bipartisan federal deficit supercommittee, Defense secretary Leon Panetta told two U.S. Senators who are pro-military spending.
Bovenstaand verhaal geldt alleen als de heren en damens aan de andere kant van de plas niet uit de huidige bezuinigingsronde komen, voor de US defensie geldt een bedrag van 450 mjd dollar voor de aankomende 10 jaar.
Als ze er niet uitkomen dan komt er automatisch, voor defensie, een additionele bezuiniging bij van 600 mjd dollar (totaal meer dan 1 biljoen).
Dus of je nu voor of tegen de JSF bent is niet zo spannend, meer dan 1000 mjd bezuinigen zal wel degelijk veel, heel veel banen gaan kosten.
Het is zaak dat ze er uitkomen.
New F-35 jets will miss air force deadline
The Canadian Press
Posted: Nov 15, 2011 8:55 PM ET
Last Updated: Nov 15, 2011 10:09 PM ET
The air force will have less than half its fleet of new F-35 fighter jets in place when it comes time to retire the aging CF-18s, and will only receive one stealth jet in the first year of the program, government estimates reveal.
The delivery of all 65 jets is being spread out between 2016 and 2023, with most of the radar-evading aircraft arriving after 2019, according to internal Defence Department figures.
The current fleet of 77 CF-18s is due to be retired by 2020. Most of the air force planning over the last decade was focused on getting replacements on the tarmac at least one or two years ahead of that deadline.
Internal Defence Department documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act show an initial delivery schedule of 16 aircraft per year, plus one spare, starting in 2016.
'When this program is cancelled, what is Plan B?' —John McKay, Liberal defence critic
Other documents in the public domain, dated in 2007 and 2009, show the manufacturer Lockheed Martin was anticipating a similar timetable.
According to access-to-information records, Canada is expected to buy 13 F-35s between 2016 and 2019. A further 52 will follow between 2020 and 2023.
A spokesman for Fantino confirmed the figures, but said the government has always anticipated a gradual roll-out.
"Canada's delivery of F-35 aircraft will be phased in incrementally as our aging CF-18s/fleet needs to be replaced," Chris McCluskey said in an email response to questions from The Canadian Press.
The highly advanced, multi-role fighter has been beset with development delays and huge cost overruns. Critics in both the U.S. and Canada have grown alarmed and questioned the program's affordability, especially in the light of each country's huge budget deficits.
The eye-popping pricetag for individual joint strike fighters — ranging from $75 million to $150 million — has limited Canada's purchase to 65 aircraft, according to previously released internal Defence Department documents.
McCluskey's note suggested the decision to stagger delivery was based on a combination of factors.
Buying in that timeframe could mean the cheapest sticker price and it also allows the air force to absorb the new aircraft into the system in an orderly fashion, said the department's email bullet points.
Questions in U.S.
Questions over the delivery schedule came as U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta threatened earlier this week to cancel the F-35 program unless the Republican-controlled Congress agrees to a series of spending cuts elsewhere in the Pentagon.
Defence experts, such as retired air force lieutenant-colonel Dean Black, said he believes Canada's decision on a slow purchase plan is more related to budget uncertainty farther down the road — something the Parliamentary budget officer has warned about.
With the decision to accept fewer aircraft over a longer period of time and no room to postpone further, Black says the government has tough decisions to make.
Although the modernized CF-18s won't fall out of the sky in 2020, the airframes and avionics of some will be worn with age.
The government should consider either another upgrade — or the purchase of a handful of the latest version of the fighter, known as the Super Hornet, said Black, the executive director of the Air Force Association of Canada.
That is exactly what Australia has done in the face of ongoing F-35 delays.
The U.S. has also embarked on a life-extending program for hundreds of its F-16 Fighting Falcons.
"If it came down to extending the life of our CF-18s, there are things the government and our military experts could look at," said Black. "I'm not sure whether Australia considers its Super Hornet purchase as a gap filler, but it wouldn't be beyond Canada to do that kind of thing."
Opposition grills Fantino
The threat by Panetta to scrap the F-35 dominated question period in the House of Commons Tuesday, with both opposition parties demanding to know what the Conservatives intend to do in the face of a potential cancellation.
"The U.S. secretary of defence gets it. The U.S. Navy gets it. The Australians get it," said Liberal defence critic John McKay. "When this program is cancelled, what is Plan B?"
Fantino denied that the program is on verge of being scrapped south of the border and said Canada has no second thoughts about the F-35. He accused the opposition of twisting the Pentagon chief's words.
"We're concerned about the rhetoric we hear, misinformation and miscommunication and misinterpretation of what Mr. Panetta has said," the rookie minister told the Commons.
The first customer in line to receive full production aircraft is the United States. There are already test versions of the F-35 in service.
Australia and Italy are the next first two customers and are expected to receive their training planes in 2014.
Britain, Turkey and Israel are slated to get the next round in 2015.
Canada has only signalled its intention to buy the F-35 and has yet to sign an agreement, but the Conservative government said that will follow shortly.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/15/f-35-fighter-jets.html
Het blijven Fransozen :(
De toonzetting in dit bericht voorspeld niet veel goeds voor de Rafale.
AIRSHOW-UPDATE 1-Rafale warplane deal stalled, UAE says proposal 'unworkable'
Nov 16 (Reuters) - A long-awaited French deal for Dassault to sell at least 60 Rafale warplanes to the United Arab Emirates appeared to hit a roadblock on Wednesday after the Arab country's crown prince said proposed terms were "uncompetitive and unworkable."
The deal, which had been negotiated for the better part of a year, was thrown into doubt earlier this week when it became clear that the UAE had asked for details on a rival aircraft, the Typhoon built by the Eurofighter consortium.
"Thanks to President (Nicolas) Sarkozy, France could not have done more diplomatically or politically to secure the Rafale deal," Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, deputy of the country's armed forces, said in a statement, adding that Sarkozy's "personal intervention in this process has sustained Dassault at the forefront of our considerations."
"Regrettably Dassault seem unaware that all the diplomatic and political will in the world cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms," he said.
A source close to the deal blamed the current impasse on the "arrogance" of Dassault, despite French military officials saying they were confident about securing a deal and hopes of finalising the sale at the Dubai Air Show.
"There is a shared frustration in both the UAE and French leaderships at the apparent arrogance of Dassault," the source said.
"Rather than using the strength of the bilateral relationship to close the deal out they are attempting to use it to hold out on pricing and a deal structure that hasn't changed in more than a year and that has been significantly bettered by all competitors."
French air chief General Jean-Paul Palomeros had told Reuters on Monday that the Emirates air force was "very keen with Rafale".
France is struggling to secure a foreign buyer for the aircraft, which is more developed than fourth generation combat aircraft but lags behind fifth generation multi-role fighters such as Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II.
The United Arab Emirates has pressed for the aircraft's engines to be upgraded with extra thrust and for better radar, industry sources have said, but Palomeros said UAE officials are satisfied with the plane.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/uae-warplanes-idUSL5E7MG2H620111116
Aerospace Business Booming, Despite Western Defense Cutbacks
by stuart on November 16, 2011
It would seem not everyone is frozen by indecision in the headlights of the European debt crisis. In many emerging markets, both governments and corporations are forging ahead with ambitious investments with plenty of money in the pocket or access to ready sources of finance. At the Dubai Air Show, Emirates Airlines, fast earning itself accolades for world's most successful airline, has just placed a record order with Boeing, according to the Financial Times.
The order for 50 Boeing 777 long-haul aircraft is worth $18 billion at list prices, a record contract by value for the US company that will add to the 162 777s the airline already operates. Competition is equally fierce in the defense sector, where Boeing has not fared quite so well against their arch-rival Airbus. Via their military side, EADS, the group appears to have sidelined Boeing with sales of their Typhoon Eurofighter to India, where the Boeing F-18 and Lockheed Martin F16 have been dropped in favor of the Typhoon and possibly the French Dassualt Rafale for a 126-fighter-jet contract said to be worth $11 billion.
In Japan on the other hand, Lockheed looks to be in much better shape, edging the Typhoon out in favor of their stealth technology F-35, according to the Telegraph. Again, Boeing's F18 is not looking too hot a prospect as, like the Typhoon, they can't match the F-35's stealth capabilities for running clandestine surveillance flights over North Korean, Chinese and Russian military assets in the region. The Typhoon has been trading recently on the highly successful results of over 3,000 operational hours over Libya, in which it is said to have achieved a 99% success rate against fixed targets and 98% success rate against mobile targets, apparently making its eye-watering, nearly $100 million price tag a bit of a bargain.
The wooden spoon goes to the poor old French, who haven't secured a single sale outside France for the Rafale in spite of heavy lobbying by President Nicolas Sarkozy at every opportunity. Dassault had hoped to secure an order for 60 jets to replace the UAE's aging fleet of Mirages, but it seems the order is more likely to go to the Typhoon in spite of three years of French lobbying.
Defense aircraft makers may be facing a stagnant market in Western countries as major players settled aircraft numbers for the next 10 to 15 years late last decade, but they have a wealth of sales opportunities in emerging and overseas markets among countries looking to replace fleets of aging Mirages, Migs and assorted American hardware. Brazil, for example, is tendering for the first 36 fighters to replace a collection of Mirages, Northrop F-5s and A-1s with either Boeing F-18s, Typhoons, possibly Saab Griffen's and, oh yes, of course, the Rafale too. It's not clear where Brazil sees the national threat by requiring so much expenditure, but apparently the total demand could rise to 100 aircraft potentially worth some $15 billion.
The governments of Qatar, Oman, South Korea, Denmark, Switzerland, Turkey, Romania, Malaysia and Bulgaria, in addition to the above, are all also reportedly considering acquiring aircraft. So on both the civilian and military aerospace front, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and European consortium EADS/Airbus, not to mention their component and subcontractor supply chains, are likely to remain busy well into the middle of the decade meeting the demand.
–Stuart Burns
http://agmetalminer.com/2011/11/16/aerospace-business-booming-despite-western-defense-cutbacks/
Citaat van: dudge op 16/11/2011 | 14:04 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/11/2011 | 13:23 uur
Het blijven Fransozen :(
Ik betwijfel zomaar dat dat een Frans kwaaltje is.
Er zijn idd meer nationaliteiten die zich wentelen in arrogantie.
F-35 price tag could skyrocket amidst U.S. budget talks
According to an article in the Globe and Mail, an American congressional "super committee" has until Nov. 23 to find $1.2-trillion in savings. If a deal is not reached by next Wednesday, the United States' purchase of military fighter jets could be on the chopping block.
"A U.S. decision to scale back or withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter program would have major political and financial implications for Canada," the article states, adding the Harper government expects to get a deal on the price tag by buying when the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, is in heavy production.
"Ottawa estimates its jets will cost between $70-million and $80-million each, even while acknowledging the current unit cost is well over $100-million."
Essentially, if the Americans don't purchase their share of jets, then there is no "heavy production" and no cost savings.
Adam Chapnick, a defence studies professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, said a U.S. decision not to go ahead with the F-35 purchase would have a significant impact on Canada.
"The cost would increase dramatically," he told the Globe.
"If the United States wasn't going to use the F-35, then it wouldn't make as much sense for us to, because part of our goal is to be inter-operable with the United States. So if there's nothing to be interoperable with, there's much less incentive to go ahead."
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Peter MacKay says it's premature to speculate about the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program given Canada isn't planning to receive its first new jet for another five years.
"This sort of apocryphal language that the Joint Strike Fighter program is coming to an end and that countries are pulling back is not correct," MacKay told reporters on Wednesday.
"A lot of this, clearly, is brought about by budgetary pressures and Canada, like every country, is concerned about delays in delivery and discussions around the cost...Those discussions are happening. Let's not get ahead of ourselves."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/f-35-price-tag-could-skyrocket-amidst-u-215424286.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/11/2011 | 14:07 uur
Er zijn idd meer nationaliteiten die zich wentelen in arrogantie.
[ Belgisch accent ] Amaai, Hollanders? [/ Belgisch accent ]
;D ;D ;D
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 17/11/2011 | 09:01 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/11/2011 | 14:07 uur
Er zijn idd meer nationaliteiten die zich wentelen in arrogantie.
[ Belgisch accent ] Amaai, Hollanders? [/ Belgisch accent ]
;D ;D ;D
Ook.... 8)
November, 18, 2011
A new flight plan for the F-35
It is not too late for the government to proceed with an open, fair and transparent procurement process.
By Claude Bachand
Published Nov 17, 2011 5:47 PM
Parliamentary Budget Officer PhotoA graphic from the parliamentary budget officer's March report on the F-35, reflecting a diminishing per-unit acquisition cost as production progresses.At first, the Bloc Québécois supported the F-35 even if it didn't like the way that the Conservative government proceeded, because it should have meant that it would be profitable for Quebec.
The Quebec population always pays 25 per cent of the cost of all this defence material, and Quebec contains 55 per cent of the whole Canadian aerospace industry base. The Bloc thought at first that Canada's system of Industrial Regional Benefits would ensure the F-35 was highly beneficial.
When the first contracts came out, however, the Canadian government did not respect this proportion. The Boeing contracts concerning the C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft and the CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter were well under the Bloc's expectations.
The government was turning a deaf ear to the Bloc's arguments, and the same things started to apply to the F-35 regional benefits.
The Bloc conceded that some companies in Quebec were given some contracts: L3-MAS, Héroux-Devtek, Pratt & Whitney Canada and CAE are four great companies that are benefiting from F-35 contracts. But Quebec is far from the chunk of 55 per cent of IRBs that were expected.
Considering that Quebec did not get its fair share of the contract and considering the fact that public opinion in Quebec was against that buy, the Bloc had to change its political direction. Two other factors weighed in.
First, the government dedicated a $10-billion plan to support the automobile business in Ontario and did not consider the importance of aerospace business in Quebec.
Secondly, a report from the parliamentary budget officer confirmed what the Bloc already knew: The cost of the F-35 was out of control. Furthermore, Robert Gates, then the US defence secretary, was annoyed by that situation. Finally, the Bloc changed its position and asked for an open procurement for the fighter jets.
Considering the cost explosion and the low speed of the F-35 development, the US Air Force is upgrading over 300 F-16s and possibly F-15s as well to cover the gap. This surely will have an impact on the price of the Canadian planes and the calendar of the Canadian acquisition schedule.
Canada's allies are also under this budget-escalating pressure and are rethinking their numbers of F-35s. This could also have a significant impact on the price of the planes dedicated to Canada.
As well, the way the financial architecture is built is unique but fragile. Indeed, it is based on a learning curve. This curve reflects a diminishing per-unit acquisition cost as production progresses. Early purchasers pay a relatively higher price when compared to those who purchase at a later date.
This is because with time, there is improved manufacturing, increased scale and other technology enhancements. So with the current hesitations from the US Air Force and US allies, the price will be increasing drastically.
In February 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to kill the funding of the F-35 backup engine being built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. This funding was to assure competitiveness with Pratt & Whitney. The disappearance of funding will now permit Pratt & Whitney to be by itself in the engine domain, which will also probably have an impact on the price per unit.
There is a larger issue here. The first step should have been the establishment of a foreign affairs policy. What does Canada want to represent in the world? What are its goals? What kind of perception does Canada wants to project worldwide?
The government should have consequently pursued with a national defence policy, and following that, with a material acquisition plan much in line with the two previous policies.
That is not the way it went. The government came out with a weak defence policy named the Canada First Defence Strategy, and managed the whole process in reverse. It went along with massive buys of trucks, armaments, ships and planes mostly conditioned by the war in Afghanistan.
It is not too late for the government to proceed with an open, fair and transparent procurement process for these fighter jets. The question is, does the government have the political will to do it, by ensuring that the taxpayers' money is well invested?
Claude Bachand was a Bloc Québécois member of Parliament for 17 years and his party's defence critic from 2000 to 2011. He was also the founder and co-chair of the aerospace caucus. In June 2010 he headed a delegation to Washington to meet with his counterparts in the US Congress.
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/a_new_flight_plan_for_the_f35_11-17-2011
Japan Could Begin Producing Boeing Fighter Jet in 2017
Nov. 17, 2011
Boeing Co. assured Japan that it will be able to start making its F/A-18 fighter jet under a licensing agreement in 2017 and equip the Self-Defense Forces with an entirely new fleet by 2021.
By touting the early start of licensing production, James Armington, vice president at Boeing's local arm, urged Japan to go with the Boeing F/A-18 fighter to replace the aging F-4 jet.
Armington was also making a thinly veiled swipe at Lockheed Martin Corp., a company also contending to replace the F-4. Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter is highly rated for its radar-masking stealth technologies, but its development is being delayed.
Meanwhile, Anthony Ennis, president of North East Asia operations for BAE Systems, stressed that as much as 95 percent of the Eurofighter could be licensed for production in Japan.
Ennis also dangled the possibility that the Eurofighter could adopt Japanese radar technologies and optical systems were Japan to loosen its three basic principles banning weapons exports.
The fighter jets being developed by the three firms are in the running to be picked as the Air Self-Defense Force's next mainstay aircraft.
Source: (C) 2011 Asia Pulse Pte Ltd.
Den Tandt: Harper government's steadfast commitment to F-35 may turn fragile
By Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia NewsNovember 17, 2011
Even Stephen Harper's detractors will acknowledge — after a few libations and with no microphones in view — that the prime minister has generally shown a deft hand in foreign affairs. Indeed, along with economic management, this has become one of Harper's greatest strengths.
So why, some in and around Ottawa wonder, is the Harper government so dead-set on championing the much-delayed, expensive and controversial F-35 fighter purchase, even as the project takes on ever more ballast?
Day after day in the House of Commons, opposition MPs pose pointed, scathing questions about why the government has "sole-sourced" this estimated $16-billion (including maintenance costs) purchase from U.S. aircraft maker Lockheed Martin, with no competitive tender. Day after day a trio of ministers — up to and including the prime minister himself — deliver wan responses, looking unhappy as they do so.
Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians doubt whether ultra-high-tech new fighters should be a priority. The government's three stock arguments in their defence — it was the Liberals who launched the program in the late 1990s, our pilots deserve the best, and the industrial spinoffs will be huge — look weak in an era of looming budget cuts.
International support for the joint strike fighter has gone wobbly. The Turks are out, because of a disagreement over rights to the F-35's critically important software source code. Australia is buying Boeing's Super Hornets. Norway has delayed its purchase. The British have reviewed their purchase of more than 100 F-35B models — the Joint Strike Fighter's vertical-landing variant. And there are rumblings that the Italians may soon do the same, if they can order any planes at all, given their debt woes.
As if all that weren't bad enough, the U.S. military — on the hook for 2,443 F-35s, at an estimated cost of $380 billion U.S. — is under siege because of America's own debt crisis. There is rampant speculation the Pentagon itself will soon be forced to curtail its order. Because pricing is based on economies of scale, that would change the game for every other member of the consortium, including Canada. As orders get reduced, the price per plane goes up.
Therefore, why so dogged? Here's a partial answer. The growing turmoil, itself, is one reason why the Harper government remains grimly at the table.
In a global system increasingly reliant on multilateral co-operation, and in which Ottawa is now deemed by its friends to be a reliable ally, the prime minister doesn't want to be seen to welch on a big deal. The Prime Minister's Office is keenly aware that a review by Canada could have a domino effect on other F-35 consortium members.
"When we've given our word (internationally) you can count on it," said a source familiar with the government's thinking. "A number of good deeds would quickly be forgotten if you took out a significant (commitment) like this."
Fair enough, as far as that goes. We remember the "soft-power" years, when Canada finger-pointed shrilly from the sidelines, while gutting the military. Few Canadians would take us back there.
But here's what the PMO clearly did not bargain for: In addition to being very costly — independent estimates put the price at between $110-million and $150-million per plane, in contrast with Ottawa's $75-million figure — even the basic version of the F-35 has technical problems that will be very expensive to remedy.
The slightest scratch to the stealth coating, for example, makes the plane much more visible to radar; maintenance requires the coating be removed, then later replaced; and the F-35 can't communicate in the Far North without the addition of an external pod, which would again make it un-stealthy. There are issues with takeoff and landing speeds and therefore runway length; glitches with the high-tech helmet worn by pilots; and oceans of as-yet unwritten software, years behind schedule.
And there's this: Why does Canada need what is essentially a first-strike weapon, when this country is not in the business of first strikes? Would it not make more sense for the RCAF to fly greater numbers of less advanced, cheaper, more workmanlike planes, such as the F-18 Super Hornet? These questions are not going away. They have yet to be satisfactorily answered by the government.
Those who say the entire F-35 project is doomed are probably off the mark: The U.S. military has bet the farm on this aircraft and now has no option but to slog ahead. This doesn't mean, however, that Canada can't and won't scrap its own buy if the Americans and Europeans recast the rules by slashing their orders.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/Tandt+Harper+government+steadfast+commitment+turn+fragile/5728266/story.html#ixzz1e2ndqRde
Disagreements on Commercial Terms Reverses UAE's Choice of Rafale
adminNovember 17, 2011 08:120 comments
The UAE has reversed its choice of Rafale as its future fighter plane and has invited the Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15SE Silent Eagle to bid on the sale of up to 60 advanced fighter jets to the UAE Air Force. For the past three years Rafale has been considered the favorite option by the UAE. "Thanks to French President Sarkozy, France could not have done more diplomatically or politically to secure the Rafale deal" Arabian Aerospace quoted the supreme commander of the UAE armed forces and Crown Price of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nayhan said, "Regrettably Dassault seems unaware that all the diplomatic and political will in the world cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms." Arabian Aerospace
Rafale, with its multirole (omnirole) capabilities, was considered a fair balance to the Kingdom's fleet of 80 Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 60, which was also fielded as a multi-role fighter, and was the first of this type to be equipped with an AESA radar. However, given the ongoing marketing campaigns in Brazil, India, South Korea and japan, where Rafale was marketed aggressively against the Typhoon, Gripen, F-16 and Super Hornet, the UAE felt the price they were requested to pay was just too high. Beside the UAE, Kuwait is also considering the Rafale.
Moreover, with 'next generation fighters' such as the F-35 becoming a potential viable option toward the end of the decade, the UAE may consider a transition phase, opting for buying more F-16 Block 60s, to be traded for F-35s as it becomes available. Alternatively, they could also opt for F-15SE Silent Eagle as an interim solution. At present, the U.S. government hasn't approved offering the F-35 to the UAE, but this may change after the first planes are supplied to Israel.
http://defense-update.com/20111117_disagreements-on-commercial-terms-reverses-uae%E2%80%99s-choice-of-rafale.html
India to wrap up MMRCA deal in 4 weeks: IAF Chief
Last Updated: Friday, November 18, 2011, 13:18
Bangalore: IAF will make public in four weeks the winner of India's biggest-ever Rs 42,000 crore military contract to acquire 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne said here.
"We are calculating very hard. There is a lot of work going on. I expect (in) another four weeks, we should be able to wrap it up", Browne told reporters here amid intense flurry among the two remaining contenders Eurofighter and Dassault's Rafale.
"By mid-December we should have very good sense of who has been selected", he said after inaugurating the 51st conference of Indian Society of Aerospace Medicine (ISAM) at the Institute of Aerospace Medicine here.
Asked if he expects cost escalation vis-a-vis the contract, the Air Chief Marshal said, "I can't tell you anything till the time we finish that work".
The Defence Ministry had shortlisted France's Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale and EADS' Eurofighter Typhoon in April.
Commercial bids from the two shortlisted vendors were opened on November four, marking the culmination of almost decade-long hunt for India's new mainline fighter.
On the process of selection, the Air Chief said there are a lot of complicated calculations and figures that needed to be checked and re-checked.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/india-to-wrap-up-mmrca-deal-in-4-weeks-iaf-chief_742462.html
Marine Commandant: Free the F-35B
WASHINGTON: When then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Gen. James Amos that he was going to put the F-35B vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter on "probation" because of testing, structure and propulsion problems, the Marine Corps commandant didn't argue; he just explained.
"I looked at him and said, 'Sir, we need this airplane,'" Amos told me in his Pentagon office, recalling a conversation that took place two months before Gates publicly announced his decision last Jan. 6. Gates said that if the B variant couldn't be put "back on track" within two years, "then I believe it should be canceled."
After ten months of weekly meetings on the subject with senior Defense Department and Navy officials, as well as executives of the plane's maker, Lockheed Martin
, Amos says the company and the program office under Vice Adm. David Venlet, have resolved two of Gates' larger concerns entirely and found fixes for five engineering problems cited that are ready for testing in December and January. Amos -- a fighter pilot and the first aviator ever to serve as Marine Corps commandant -- is confident those fixes will work.
For that reason, the commandant hopes Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon declare the F-35B off "probation" -- whatever that undefined, non-regulation term actually means -- so the Marine variant of the JSF can shed the taint it acquired when Gates applied his unorthodox label.
"I just think it's getting a bum rap," Amos said, sounding a bit like a worried parent. "The airplane's performing really well now -- I mean really well."
Two of Gates' criticisms were that flight tests of the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B were behind schedule and that it had yet to land on and take off from an amphibious assault ship, the type of vessel that will serve as the STOVL's home away from home in the Marine Corps. Today the facts are much different.
As of Nov. 1, the F-35B had completed 291 of 293 test flights planned for calendar 2011, putting it 13% ahead of its new schedule. By the same date, two B variants had completed more than two weeks of sea trials on the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, during which they completed 72 short takeoffs and vertical landings, all but flawlessly. One pilot said his biggest problem was putting the nose wheel down in a one-foot square target on the ship's pitching deck.
The decision on probation is all Panetta's to make, Amos said, noting that no criteria for making it are to be found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations because "probation" isn't an official status. In any event, the commandant hopes the F-35B gets a clean bill of health "sooner rather than later." Image isn't everything, but Amos figures it's increasingly important given current crisis negotiations over how much to cut the defense budget.
The F-35, officially the "Lightning II," is being built in three variants -- conventional, vertical and aircraft carrier landing models -- for the Air Force, Marines, Navy and eight allied nations that are partners in the program. Like the Marines, Italy plans to buy the STOVL variant, and Spain is a likely customer once its finances improve.
At $379 billion or more to produce 2,443 F-35s for the U.S. services, according to the most recent Defense Department estimate, the project makes a juicy target for those looking for ways to ease the nation's economic and budget crises by cutting defense spending.
The B variant is particularly vulnerable, for when the option of reducing the size of the massive F-35 program comes up, Amos observed, the fact that Gates put the STOVL model on "probation" is almost always mentioned. To Amos, this seems to imply that the conventional takeoff Air Force version and carrier-capable Navy variant are doing better. "It's an inaccurate picture," he said.
The F-35B uses an innovative "lift fan" installed a couple of feet behind the cockpit to provide about half the roughly 40,000 lbs. of thrust it needs to hover or land vertically. Three of the five engineering problems that led Gates to put the plane on probation had to do with the lift fan, a new technology. A fourth concerned overheating in related "roll posts" that bleed hot engine air through ducts and downward from nozzles in each wing to control the aircraft's roll axis in vertical flight.
Amos offered this rundown of the engineering fixes Lockheed and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney are making, with the costs covered by funds already appropriated for development:
-- An interior bulkhead that fits around the jet's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and extends into the wings has been redesigned because of cracks in it discovered after 1,500 hours of durability testing. The bulkhead in question is titanium in the conventional and carrier versions of the aircraft but aluminum in the B variant to save weight. The redesigned bulkhead has been installed in the 24th F-35B built and corrections will be retrofitted into the first 23 B variants, five of which are being used in tests and the rest of which are in various stages of production.
-- Devices that operate the roll post nozzles were overheating when the F-35B hovered or flew forward at less than 60 knots, or about 75 mph, in vertical flight mode. These "actuators" are being insulated and the fix has been successful in flight test. Pratt & Whitney may change an adhesive used in the actuators to solve the excessive heating problem and obviate the need for the insulation in the future.
-- The drive mechanism that opens two Auxiliary Air Intake doors behind the clamshell lift fan door on top of the fuselage and holds them steady as the F-35B hovers or flies in vertical mode has been redesigned to be more robust and is being replaced. The change was made because turbulence created by the lift fan door causes the AAI doors to oscillate excessively with the current drive mechanism, making them likely to wear out too soon.
-- The driveshaft that runs from the engine to the lift fan to turn its blades has proven to fit imperfectly into its designed space by an "infinitesimally small" amount, as Amos described it. This means mechanics may have to pre-stress the part to install it. That creates problems when the shaft expands and contracts due to changes in its temperature as the aircraft warms up in flight. A thin steel "spacer," shaped something like a washer and about the diameter of a volleyball, has been incorporated to make the driveshaft fit better in the fifth F-35B variant as an interim fix. A redesigned driveshaft will become a standard production part beginning in early 2014.
-- Improved cooling and temperature monitors have been added to ensure safe operation when lift fan clutch plates that sometimes drag against one another during normal flight produce excessive heat. Adjusting the distance between the clutch plates is expected to solve take care of the problem.
Amos wants Panetta's decision on taking the F-35B variant off probation to be "event-driven," not made out of a sense or urgency, he said, adding that he wants to "make sure that everybody is comfortable with this."
The commandant already is.
http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/18/marine-commandant-amos-free-the-f-35b/
UPDATE 1-No alternative to F-35 fighter jet, US, Canada say
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, Nov 18 (Reuters) - Defense chiefs from the United States and Canada said on Friday that budgetary pressures would not derail development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, saying there was no real alternative to what has become the Pentagon's costliest weapons program.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said flatly he was confident Congress would approve funding for the F-35, which is facing fresh scrutiny for possible cuts as lawmakers weigh how to scale back the U.S. deficit.
Two days ago Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay expressed concern about reports of delays in F-35 delivery and said his government was in direct talks with manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp.
MacKay, speaking to reporters alongside Panetta at a security conference in Halifax, said his country would press ahead with the program.
"There is no fifth generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States. So all of the hypothetical discussions, and negative discussions, quite frankly, about this program are really just clatter and noise," MacKay said. "This program is going ahead."
The United States is developing a family of radar-evading F-35s with eight international partners - Canada, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Denmark and Norway.
It is projected to cost the United States more than $382 billion to buy a total of 2,447 F-35 models over the next two decades. Other countries, including the co-development partners, are expected to buy roughly another 750 aircraft.
Canada says it plans to buy 65 of the jets, which in theory will start arriving in 2016. It has not yet signed a binding contract.
Panetta acknowledged that the Pentagon was still looking at ways to make the $450 billion in cost-cuts over the next decade, approved by Congress.
"But we also have to look to areas where we have to continue to invest for the future. And the F-35 is one of those areas, where we are going to continue to invest for the future," Panetta said.
Panetta's comments appeared predicated on the expectation that Congress would reach a deficit reduction deal before a Nov. 23 deadline.
If a 12-member congressional "super committee" fails, automatic, across-the-board cuts would kick in. Those would force the Pentagon to slash another $600 billion over the next decade, something that Panetta warned in a letter to Congress this week could affect the F-35 program this week.
"This is the fighter plane for the future. And in some ways we really have no alternative," Panetta told reporters in Halifax.
"This is the plane that is going to be able to provide the technology, the capabilities for the future. We need to have those. It's true for us. It's true for our partners."
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in Washington he did not mean to leave the impression during a recent hearing that he was contemplating canceling a version of the F-35.
Dempsey told a congressional hearing last month that in the tight budget environment maintaining three variants of the F-35 "creates some fiscal challenges for us" and added it's "something we'll have to keep an eye on."
He told reporters on Friday that he meant it would be a challenge if the Pentagon was hit with an additional $600 billion in across-the-board cuts, which would slash funding for a proportion of all programs equally.
"I didn't have a crosshair on the F-35," Dempsey said. But he added that everyone should understand that an additional across-the-board cut would "affect ... everything we do." (Reporting by Phil Stewart and David Alexander in Washington; Editing by Paul Simao and Christopher Wilson)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/usa-f35-canada-idUSN1E7AH1N420111118
Lockheed gets $7.4B Air Force deal to upgrade F-22
Friday, November 18, 2011
WASHINGTON --
The Pentagon says it has awarded defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. a contract worth up to $7.4 billion to upgrade the systems in the Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter jet.
The contract calls for Lockheed to develop system upgrades, add new capabilities and enhance the performance of the aircraft.
The Pentagon says one company was solicited for the contract and one firm submitted a proposal, which suggests only Lockheed vied for the lucrative contract.
Earlier this year, the Air Force temporarily grounded its entire fleet of Raptors for more than four months after concerns over its oxygen-supply system had prompted a larger examination of the stealth fighter.
The Air Force returned its Raptors to flight in September.
Shares of Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed ended regular trading down 6 cents at $75.10.
Copyright 2011 Associated Press.
U.S. senators decry F-35 fighter plane's soaring costs
Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
Published: Saturday, November 19, 2011
HALIFAX - U.S. Sen. John McCain and two other members of the powerful Senate armed services committee expressed concerns about the F-35 fighter plane on Saturday, a day after the U.S. defense secretary said his country was committed to the project.
"We've been very disturbed over the cost overruns that have characterized this weapon system. It is now the first $1-trillion (weapon) in history," McCain told reporters, flanked by Democratic senators Mark Udall and Jeanne Shaheen.
"It's not that we're opposed to the F-35. We are opposed to out-of-control cost overruns."
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Also known as Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in flight.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's commitment to the program on Friday would close the issue of whether Washington would see the F-35 through to full production despite major ongoing problems.
McCain's comments on the margins of a major international defence conference, however, highlight the tenuous state of the program, particularly since it will be Congress who must approve the billions that will be needed to get the plane off the drawing board and into the hands of the U.S. military and allies like Canada.
"I continue to hope that Lockheed Martin and the military will get their act together and get back on track," McCain said.
"We want the F-35 to succeed. We're not opposed to the F-35. But we have obligations to our taxpayers."
Despite ongoing questions about the program, the Conservative government has committed to buying 65 of the stealth fighters, arguing cost overruns and delays in the U.S. will not increase the price for Canada. It has said the cost will be $9 billion. Other estimates peg the total price at $30 billion.
Earlier in the day, McCain and Udall also discussed the Obama administration's recent decision to delay the Keystone XL pipeline to Texas.
While unified in their concern over the F-35, the two senators were at odds on the pipeline.
"It strikes me that if we're producing oil on our continent, we should put it to use here," Udall said, but added: "There were some legitimate concerns in certain parts of the mid-West about water supplies.
"The only other liquid that's more valuable is H2O itself."
McCain, however, was clear in his position.
"I think it was a mistake to cancel the pipeline," he said.
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=5738787
Harriers in the Taiwan Strait?
By Christopher Whyte
November 19, 2011
Despite the Obama administration's recent rejection of Taipei's request for new sales of F-16C/D multirole craft, elements of the U.S. government continue to support the future sale of various combat weapons systems to the island nation.
Looking at the situation strategically, most observers agree that Taiwan needs new fighters. As it currently stands, the air forces of the Republic of China operates a mix of F-16A/B jets, Mirage 2000s and the domestically-produced Indigenous Defense Fighter. While some of these fighters will be retired in the foreseeable future, the recent $5 billion sale of an upgrade package for Taiwan's sizeable F-16 fleet certainly means that current forces will largely be able to endure for some years to come.
Still, Taiwan faces a double-edged threat. On the one hand, the current fighters increasingly face the costs of age-related mechanical problems (and presumably will continue to do so). On the other, the swift growth of technologically advanced and strategically viable forces across the Straits consistently restrains the degree to which the ROC Air Force can be relevant, given its current capabilities, in any potential future conflict.
China's January unveiling of the J-20 stealth fighter hinted at just how quickly the People's Republic is producing its own advanced technologies. While it's probably true that the plane will likely be in development for some years to come, the J-20 and other forces, from the PRC's new aircraft carrier to ship-killing ballistic missiles, send a clear message: the China of the future will be well-equipped to achieve its goals in international affairs.
The government in Taipei, not surprisingly, is more aware of this more than other regional neighbors. With a mere hundred miles of sea separating the two Chinas, the mainland's growing military power could be lethal in a possible military conflict. Given this, the island is assuming that new strike and air superiority fighter forces will be the lynchpin for any future force structure. To that end, intense lobbying for new F-16s, unsuccessful so far, will surely continue.
And yet, the United States may be sitting on a perfect near-term solution for the Taiwan problem - the Harrier. It's well known Taiwan's air defense forces, even the newer block F-16C/D, would not withstand the numerically superior assault of Chinese ballistic and aerial forces for more than a few hours. Interestingly, the primary reason for this isn't based on capabilities, but rather the high likelihood that China's missile forces would disable the island's ability to field military units in short order, targeting air bases, commercial runways and any other infrastructural means for launching combat fighters and reconnaissance craft. Taiwan will ultimately need short- or vertical-takeoff capable craft like the F-35B. Taiwan's dilemma when it comes to the procurement of new forces is that, short of the VSTOL Joint Strike Fighter, new fighter sales from the United States may do nothing more than irritate Beijing.
Yet, the Harrier jump jet could help shore up deficiencies in the contingency capabilities of the ROC Air Force for any future conflict. The Harrier AV-8B, currently operated by the U.S. Marine Corps, is a competent night attack VSTOL strike fighter, used extensively in Libya and capable of operating without any real runway facilities to speak of. Until their scrapping by a controversial defense review last year, Great Britain's Royal Navy operated a similarly designed version from the decks of its Invincible-class aircraft carriers. That being said, these well-designed and functional planes live on. The U.S. military has now taken advantage of Britain's austerity measures, buying an entire air wing of Harrier jump jets and their parts that can be modified and used by the Marine Corps until production of the newer VSTOL F-35B can be ramped up.
As I've said elsewhere, planes like the Harrier II jump jet and the SAAB JAS-39 Gripen could be a solid investment for Taiwan, as neither requires long runways and both could respectively provide continuing strike and air superiority capabilities under difficult conditions. The former plane would prove an effective countermeasure to potential naval and amphibious assault in the future, while the latter's focus on large air-to-air payloads would augment and strengthen air defenses against China's 4th generation jet series.
In the end, the debate over future arms sales to Taiwan will continue, with changing American administrations and shifting strategic realities constantly shaping both the island's requests for supplementary forces and Washington's decisions to supply new technology.
The benefits to Taiwan of a Harrier sale are clear and, though arms sales to Taipei have always risked incurring the wrath of the mainland, the relatively light profile of these craft and the potential effect that they could have on quelling further requests for arms in the foreseeable future may well make such a sale politically feasible. For the United States, this kind of move could help construct a balanced status quo situation that wouldn't risk arms escalation and would allow for more focus on cross-Straits confidence-building measures in the near future.
Christopher Whyte is a Washington DC area analyst and graduate student in Political Science in International Relations at George Mason University, Virginia.
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/11/19/harriers-in-the-taiwan-strait/
Typhoon's fighting chance for a £3.3bn contract from UAE By Tom Mcghie
Last updated at 10:16 PM on 19th November 2011
Comments (0) Share THE 'flawless' performance of RAF Typhoons over Libya has given the Eurofighter arms consortium an unexpected chance to snatch a £3.3billion contract.
The United Arab Emirates had been expected to confirm it was spending the money on 60 French Rafale fighters.
But Eurofighter executives said the Typhoon's performance in the campaign to oust Colonel Gaddafi had prompted the UAE to think again.
High hopes: The Typhoon, star of the Libya campaign, shows its mettle at the Dubai Airshow this month
The Typhoon is built by a consortium of BAE Systems, Finmeccanica of Italy and Eads in Germany and Spain.
France said last month that Dassault, maker of the Rafale, and UAE were in final talks and a deal was 'extremely probable'.
Both sides have been in talks since 2008. The new planes are needed to replace a fleet of French Mirage jets.
The Rafale, though highly rated, is regarded as expensive and lacking high-altitude performance compared with the Typhoon.
After announcing that officials wanted to look at the Typhoon, Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Sheikh bin Zayed Al Nahyan said: 'Unfortunately, Dassault doesn't
realise that political will and all the diplomatic efforts cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms.'
If Dassault fails to land the UAE order, its best chance of a major export contract is to pip Eurofighter to a deal in India. Both companies are competing for a £6.6billion order for 126 jets.
Though Eurofighter officials are confident their plane is superior, they believe Paris could sweeten a deal by offering India the chance to build French-designed nuclear power stations.
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2063641/Typhoons-fighting-chance-3-3bn-contract-UAE.html#ixzz1eESh1isS
Citaat van: dudge op 20/11/2011 | 10:52 uur
Citaat van: This is money op 20/11/2011 | 09:28 uur
cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms.'
Ben toch wel heel benieuwd wat hier nu mee bedoeld wordt. Heel simpel staat er 'het ding is te duur', maar vermoed dat dat niet is wat bedoeld wordt. Zal eerder iets te maken hebben met het updaten van het toestel ofzo.
Goede vraag, want de EF lijkt mij in alle opzichten duurder!
UAE stresses 'strategic relationship' with France
The United Arab Emirates and France share a "strategic relationship", the Gulf state's foreign minister said at a meeting with his French counterpart, the state news agency WAM reported on Sunday.
Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan met French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe at the annual Sir Bani Yas forum, an informal gathering on regional peace and security attended by top local and international officials.
Juppe arrived in the UAE on Saturday for talks on bilateral relations and the escalating crisis in Syria.
He was also expected to discuss the proposed sale of 60 Rafale fighter jets to the UAE, a deal which appears to have reached an impasse in the final stages of negotiations.
Sheikh Abdullah, in a statement quoted by WAM, stressed the importance of ties with France and called for efforts to "develop and strengthen them."
Juppe is responsible for overseeing the proposed sale to the UAE of the Rafale, which is used only by the French air force and has yet to be sold aboard.
But in a statement to WAM last week, the UAE's deputy head of the armed forces, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, said the French offer was "unworkable and uncompetitive."
The UAE has invited Eurofighter to make a counter offer, the European consortium said last week.
In 2009, France opened its first Middle East military base in the UAE, a move aimed at raising its regional profile alongside Washington and London.
Juppe is on a regional tour which included a stopover on Friday in Turkey, where he said "the time has come to increase sanctions" against the Syrian regime for its deadly crackdown on anti-government protests.
He is to travel on to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.
A French foreign ministry statement said prior to his departure that his trip would "provide an opportunity for consultations on regional issues, including the Syrian crisis and the Arab Spring."
© 2011 AFP 20/11/11
Ergens denk ik dat de RFP voor EF gebruikt wordt als knuppel om mee te slaan en om het onderste uit de Dessault kan te krijgen voor de aankoop van de Rafale, de VAE heeft immers geen al te grote haast.
Aan de andere kant, de afwijzing was wel snoeihard.
Wie het weet mag het zeggen.
Ik begreep dat de UAE geschoffeerd waren door Dassault.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 20/11/2011 | 14:25 uur
Ik begreep dat de UAE geschoffeerd waren door Dassault.
Dat is natuurlijk een rekbaar begrip.
De vraag is nu alleen... is het exit Rafale of wordt het spel nu heel hoog en hard gespeeld?
Ik kreeg in eerste instantie de indruk dat de Rafale exit is, echter uit de berichtgeving van de laatste dagen komt dit niet hard naar voren.
Citaat van: dudge op 20/11/2011 | 12:15 uur
Ik las in de MS (meen juli ofzo) dat er intern bij de Fransen een strijd was ontstaan tussen luchtmacht en marine om de leveringen van de Rafale. Reden, de levering tempo aan Frankrijk zouden mogelijk in aantal verlaagd worden om maximaal te produceren voor de UAE, die op korte termijn alles geleverd wilde hebben. Dat was in 2009 ofzo. De druk op Dassault is al behoorlijk, want de EF is niet het eerste RFP, ook aan de Amerikanen heeft men om informatie verzocht. Misschien zit het probleem ook wel niet (alleen) bij Dassault, maar ook bij de UAE, die er onderling niet uitkomen.
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/cr-cdef/11-12/c1112010.asp (http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/cr-cdef/11-12/c1112010.asp)
Boventaande link verwijst naar een zitting van 25 oct 2011.
Daarin is te lezen dat de production rate van Rafales momenteel op 11/jaar staat.
Dat cijfer is het resultaat van het minimum nodig om de productielijn open te houden (geen verlies competenties bij Dassault) en tevens ook het financieel haalbare bij Défense Nationale...
M.a.w. er is wel degelijk capaciteit bij Dassault om meer/sneller te produceren.
US, Canadian Defense Leaders Call F-35 Crucial
November 21, 2011
Air Force News|by John D. Banusiewicz
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia -- Calling it crucial to the defense of North America, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Canadian Defense Minister Peter G. MacKay today emphasized that both nations are committed to developing the F-35 joint strike fighter.
http://www.military.com/news/article/air-force-news/us-canadian-defense-leaders-call-f35-crucial.html
Decks cleared for Rs 5000 crore IAF deal for missiles, trainer jets
Rajat Pandit, TNN | Nov 21, 2011, 04.25AM IST
NEW DELHI: All decks have been cleared for two crucial defence deals, together worth over Rs 5,000 crore, to acquire 75 Swiss turbo-prop aircraft to train rookie pilots as well as around 450 advanced French missiles to arm upgraded Mirage-2000 multi-role fighters.
Defence ministry sources say the two deals have now been "sent" to the Cabinet Committee on Security for the "final nod" after "clarifying all objections" of finance ministry. "The contracts will be inked after the CCS clears within a week or so," said a source.
This comes at a time when MoD and IAF are busy calculating the "lowest bidder" between French Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon for the mega medium multi-role combat aircraft project to acquire 126 fighters at a cost likely to touch $20 billion. But while these fighter deliveries will begin from 2015 , IAF wants to induct trainers earlier to train new pilots. The hurry to acquire 75 Swiss Pilatus PC-7 basic trainers is critical since IAF's 114 piston-engined HPT-32 jets have been grounded since August 2009 due to repeated engine failures.
"We want to begin our first course on the Pilatus trainers from July 2013," said a senior officer. IAF, of course, is already inducting 123 British Hawk AJTs (advanced jet trainers), at a cost of around Rs 16,000 crore, but they are meant for "advanced'' combat training. The contract for the around 450 fire-and-forget, all-weather MICA (interception and aerial combat missiles) systems with French company MBDA, too, has been in the pipeline for quite some time.
It flows from the Rs 10,947 crore programme finalized in July for an upgrade of 51 Mirage-2000s with the help of French companies Dassault Aviation (aircraft manufacturer) and Thales (weapons systems integrator).
While the first two fighters are being sent to France next month for the upgrade, the remaining 49 will later be "souped up" with new avionics, radars, mission computers, glass cockpits, helmet-mounted displays, electronic warfare suites, weapon delivery and precision-targeting systems by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd in India. The overall upgrade project cost will go beyond Rs 15,000 crore over the decade it will take to be completed. Down to just 33-34 fighter squadrons (each has 16 to 18 jets) from a 'sanctioned strength' of 39.5
The 63 MiG-29s are to be upgraded under a $964 million deal inked with Russia in March 2008. Then, apart from the 126 MMRCA, IAF is also inducting 272 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion. Moreover, the first lot of the around 120 indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft will join IAF from end-2013 onwards. On top of this all, India plans to induct 250-300 stealth fifth-generation fighter aircraft co-developed with Russia from 2020 onwards, in what will be its biggest-ever defence project at around $35 billion.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Decks-cleared-for-Rs-5000-crore-IAF-deal-for-missiles-trainer-jets/articleshow/10810541.cms
Mideast Setback for Rafale, Dassault
UAE Faults Offer, Widens Fighter Competition
By PIERRE TRAN
Published: 20 November 2011
DUBAI - A stinging rebuke by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to French efforts to sell the Rafale will pressure fighter maker Dassault to smarten up its commercial approach, particularly as the company is a contender in India's bid for a new warplane, analysts said.
The Rafale is competing against the Eurofighter Typhoon in India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program for 126 fighters, which is due to be decided in the coming months. Dassault now has to decide how to respond to the UAE's criticism, while keeping its Indian bid on the rails.
Related TopicsAmericas
"Thanks to President [Nicolas] Sarkozy, France could not have done more diplomatically or politically to secure the Rafale deal," Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed said Nov. 16, the official news agency WAM reported. "Regrettably, Dassault [seems] unaware that all the diplomatic and political will in the world cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms." Dassault had been "at the forefront of our considerations," he said.
Dassault declined comment.
Bin Zayed, deputy supreme commander of the UAE armed forces, is a former Air Force pilot, ex-head of the Air Force academy and has extensive procurement experience.
France has been negotiating for three years to sell 60 Rafales to the UAE to replace an equal number of Mirage 2000-9s. The gulf state has been seen as the best prospect for a first export win for the fighter.
The UAE authorities, however, viewed a Rafale order as a political favor requested by Paris, essentially for domestic electoral reasons ahead of the 2012 May presidential elections.
"This is not a requirement," a gulf source familiar with the talks said. "It was pushed as a political purchase."
UAE officials are unhappy with what they see as French industry's failure to "understand the political nature of the deal."
That led to deep dissatisfaction with the entire deal, the terms, specifications and price. The components pitched by Dassault did not meet requirements.
"The price is ridiculous," the source said.
That dissatisfaction led the UAE to issue a request for proposal (RfP) to Britain for the Typhoon, following an Oct. 17 briefing on the aircraft built by the Eurofighter consortium.
The two-page RfP document may be brief, leaving Eurofighter executives keen for clarification, but the leak by a British team member of Eurofighter put Dassault out in the cold, despite the warm gulf weather at the airshow here, which closed Nov. 17.
With the Eurofighter now in the bidding, on top of earlier UAE requests for information about the Boeing F-15 and F-18, and Lockheed Martin's F-16, that meant there would be no deal in the near future.
"This is now an open competition," the gulf source said. "It is going to take months to go through the offers and compare the data."
UAE officials felt "unease" over the French "mechanism," seen as lacking coordination among the various parts of the offer.
Sarkozy's tasking of Foreign Minister Alain Juppé as lead in the Rafale talks was seen by UAE officials as a sign of distress and belated realization of a need to bring order to the fighter negotiations. Juppé will visit the UAE, as part of a Nov. 19-22 gulf tour, where he will discuss the Rafale offer.
French media have reported Sarkozy had been determined to secure a first export order for the Rafale, promoted as a flagship of aeronautical excellence and a much needed foreign earner for the public treasury.
Impact on India
Whether the UAE was serious or using a negotiating tactic, Dassault must assume it has a problem and be more commercially aggressive for India, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va.
"This increases the emphasis on India," Aboulafia said.
The past decade has shown a tally of Rafale export failures: South Korea, Singapore and Morocco, Aboulafia said. That is why the UAE outcome has consequences for India.
Robbin Laird, a partner of consultancy ICSA, based in Paris and Washington, said he agreed.
"Absolutely," Laird said. "Everyone looks at this."
The key to India is Thales, not Dassault, Laird said. Thales is well-respected by the Indian authorities because the electronics company has built a strong and diversified presence in the country. Eurofighter is building a presence in India, but Thales has a decade advantage.
"Is Dassault skillful enough to exploit that advantage?" Laird asked.
India seeks 50 percent industrial offset, seen by a British official as a large proportion of the total deal, estimated at about $10 billion.
In addition to India, France hopes to sell the Rafale to Brazil and Switzerland, with the latter expected to decide next month on its F-5 replacement.
France has gone back to the UAE, which flies the Mirage 2000-9, to break that record of foreign failures, the official said.
But the European budget crisis makes it hard for Paris to find money to co-develop a Rafale version that meets the UAE's needs for range, payload, thrust and sensors. The French government is funding the 11 minimum units a year to keep the Dassault line running at an economic rate, but the question is for how long.
"This could be the future of the line," Aboulafia said. "An advanced fighter built from mainly domestic sources is the ultimate luxury."
Is French anxiety to maintain its AAA credit rating a factor, piling pressure on the defense budget?
"Absolutely," Aboulafia said.
For Laird, the crisis over the euro single currency also weighs on the fighter talks. The euro's collapse has boosted the acquisition price but there is uncertainty where the currency will be in the future.
For instance, Berlin opposes Paris' support for the European Central Bank buying European bonds, seen as critical to supporting the euro. That kind of deep policy split begs the question of whether there will be a euro in five years, Laird said.
Network Integration
A perceived Iranian nuclear threat is a major geostrategic factor for the UAE, which is why the French military base at Abu Dhabi is "correctly pointed at Iran," Laird said.
The UAE's plans to build its air operations center (AOC) in the coming year is a key element in the fighter talks. The timing signals the UAE's sense of "urgency" in integrating its air and sea capabilities.
"The AOC allows the present F-16s and Mirages to work together, but that means whatever fighter acquisition will be integrated into what you have," Laird said.
On the technical requirements, the 7.5-ton thrust of the Snecma M88 engine is still an issue in the export market, Laird said.
"The engine is the most negative focus among export partners," he said.
The powerplant is vital for the fighter's growth potential as the engine generates power for all the onboard subsystems, and there is concern that the present M88 model lacks growth potential.
French Defense Minister Gérard Longuet has said the Rafale had shown in the Libyan operations that the present M88 engine met the UAE's requirements. That assertion may well be what UAE officials had in mind, when they privately say: "Don't tell us what our requirements are."
Laird said a General Electric-Snecma co-development, would be based on General Electric's F136 engine technology, and would make sense for upgrading the Rafale.
The Rafale had three advantages in the UAE, a French executive said. The local industrial offsets were set up and ready to be started, the Rafale has an advanced electronically scanned array radar in production, and France might buy back some of the Mirage 2000-9s for resale.
Optimism Bubbles
U.S. fighter makers Boeing and Lockheed, meanwhile, hope they can seal deals with the UAE, and elsewhere in the region. Lockheed has provided the UAE with information on F-16 upgrades.
"Most of our customers are doing things to prepare for F-35 - what kind of upgrades you need, primarily in terms of software and communications equipment, whether it be data or voice, to be able to communicate with the F-35," said William McHenry, F-16 business development director.
Lockheed sees the F-16 upgrades as a bridge to foreign sales of the F-35.
"Fundamentally, it is a game-changer for air forces as they do their road map planning," McHenry said. "Some may very well decide the F-35 is not for them - I don't know how they might do that. The F-35 will have to be looked at one way or another. You cannot ignore what a fifth-generation airplane brings."
Lockheed is marketing the F-35 as a replacement for the F-16, of which 4,558 units were sold.
"All the air forces who have been able to engage at the appropriate levels of classification have come away with the same opinion: that the F-35 is required in the future," McHenry said.
The UAE is holding an "open fighter competition," said Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security. Boeing earlier this year provided information on the F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet to the UAE in support of government talks under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales regime, he said.
UAE Air Force planners have a clear view of what they want in a new fighter, namely, one that fits into their network-centric approach, said Theodore Karasik, research director at Inegma, a conference and consulting company, based here. The UAE Air Force, which had seen what the Mirage 2000-9 could do in the Libyan operations, was now reassessing its needs and would take the time needed to decide on an acquisition, he said.
Maj. Gen. Ibrahim Naser Al Alawi, deputy commander of the UAE Air Force and Air Defense, said Nov. 12 at an air chiefs conference that the Air Force was looking for network capability, open architecture and interoperability in a new generation combat aircraft.
A future weapon system would be versatile, multirole and capable of handing modular sensors and payloads, Al Alawi said.
Other elements would include upgradeable and expandable hardware and software, and the plane would be fast, agile and easily serviceable, he said.
Longuet said he hoped a Rafale order might be signed Dec. 2, marking the 40th anniversary of the UAE's founding and Napoleon's victory at the battle of Austerlitz. That December date looks likely to be dashed.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8315802&c=FEA&s=CVS
USAF Weighs Future Priority Needs
New fighters, missiles and missions are the hallmarks of the U.S. Air Force. While these still percolate in long-term plans, near-term fiscal constraints are forcing the service to craft a delicate balance between upgrading existing forces and husbanding funds for new equipment.
Whether even hoping for equipment such as an eventual Lockheed Martin F-22 replacement is delusional or merely prudent is in the eye of the beholder, given the urgency behind debt-reduction talks coming to a head this month in Congress. The reality is that work on the concept, referred to as F-X, is in its infancy. It involves exploring what technologies might be necessary to assure air superiority 20 years from now and 30 years beyond that, says USAF Col. Edward Corcoran, the air superiority core function team leader at Air Combat Command.
Perhaps slightly earlier out of the gate will be a next-generation missile, a notional follow-on to the Raytheon AIM-120D air-to-air missile for internal carriage in the compact weapons bays of the F-22 and F-35 stealthy fighters.
The service also is in talks with the Missile Defense Agency about adding an airborne weapons layer to the country's missile defense architecture. The goal is to determine the launch platform and interceptor, and whether this is a cost-effective proposition. The jury is still out, but "it certainly looks promising," Corcoran told the IQPC International Fighter conference in London.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz first inquired about a so-called air-launched hit-to-kill concept in June 2009, when he kicked off an exploratory study. Since then, the service is said to be interested but would like the MDA to cover the development portion. How those interests will be prioritized is part of an Air Force exercise to draw up a master plan intended to be the foundational document for budget decisions from fiscal 2014 and beyond. The finished version is expected in January, allowing time for it to reflect more precisely the scope of budget cuts now being debated that will take effect over the next decade. An example of the financial pressure for the Air Force is its proposal in the forthcoming budget to trim some F-16 and A-10 squadrons from the National Guard, a move to save money but that also adds risk to the service's ability to conduct missions.
Some spending decisions are mandatory. For instance, the anticipated delay in the operational debut of the F-35A, now not expected until 2018, is forcing the service to upgrade 300-350 Block 40/50 F-16s with service-life extensions and avionics upgrades costing almost $10 million per aircraft, Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, tells Congress.
The service also is grappling with aging issues on the F-15 fleet. Detailed fatigue trials, ordered after a right-side longeron fatigue-related failure downed an F-15C in 2008, recently unearthed additional cracking in this structure. The situation was deemed non-critical—a fix can be addressed for most aircraft during depot maintenance, says Lt. Col. Kevin Riordan, operational adviser for the system program office. But, the review underscores the fragility of an aging fleet. Some high-time airframes must be repaired more rapidly, he notes, but there is no indication the fleet cannot meet its current service-life projection: 2030 for F-15Cs and 2035 for F-15Es.
Air Force officials say that while F-15s and F-16s are gaining hours supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the missions are not placing high structural demands on the airframes owing to the permissive airspace. Thus, the hours gained are less harsh on the structures than if these missions required high-g air-to-air combat maneuvers.
Another question is where scarce money can best be used to keep the aircraft operationally viable into the future. Software and processor upgrades are likely candidates, as is the active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar upgrade—the APG63(V)3 for the F-15C and APG-82(V)1 for the F-15E. The F-16 will probably receive a small AESA radar.
Still under review is whether to put the Sniper targeting pod already used on F-15Es on the C-model; the move would come after $345 million for an infrared search-and-track system was pulled in the fiscal 2012 budget to save money.
Corcoran notes that for any upgrade now being proposed, program officials must offer an offset to control spending.
Also being considered are long-term upgrades for the newest fighter, the F-22. Near-term upgrades to be fielded in the next five years are already under way, but the service soon expects to define the content of the next package—Increment 3.2C. Potential elements include multi-spectral capabilities to expand the offensive and defensive frequency potential of the fighter, required upgrades such as Mode 5 integration friend or foe, or automatic ground collision and terrain avoidance. Officials are examining how best to share F-22 data, collected by an unprecedented onboard sensor suite, with legacy fighters. Eventually a data-sharing network with F-35s is planned, but delays in the latter's development have made passing F-22 data to fourth-generation fighters a higher priority.
The first major F-22 enhancement—Increment 3.1—is now entering service, with an initial pair of upgraded stealth fighters recently delivered to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. Fleet retrofits will continue through 2016 and include the hardware and software modifications needed to drop eight Small-Diameter Bombs, take synthetic aperture radar (SAR) pictures and provide precision location and electronic attack capabilities.
Full operational test and evaluation is still being completed, but Maj. Richard Foster, Air Combat Command requirements officer, says the results are positive. SAR accuracy is 55% better than specified and geolocation accuracy is 15% better. Also, electronic attacks have proven 100% successful in testing.
The F-22 also will get a rudimentary AIM-120D firing capability next year (through the so-called Update 4), although full integration is not planned until Increment 3.2B in 2017. An initial capability to fire the Raytheon AIM-9X dogfight missile also has been accelerated to 2015 (under Update 5), with full integration also to come with Increment 3.2B.
Next on the upgrade path is Increment 3.2A, a software enhancement that includes expanded Link 16 data-link functionality, combat identification and electronic protection. It should emerge around 2014.
Besides the full integration of the latest air-to-air missiles, Increment 3.2B also expands geolocation by 88% beyond what is now being introduced.
In addition, around 2016 USAF expects to have moved to two F-22 configurations, the Block 20 aircraft to be used for training and development and Block 30/35s for the operational fleet. Foster says 36 aircraft will be in the Block 20 standard with 149 to settle on the Block 30/35 configuration.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/11/14/AW_11_14_2011_p37-392429.xml&headline=USAF%20Weighs%20Future%20Priority%20Needs&prev=10
Boeing: We Are Ready for Whatever Happens
By Ted Reed - The Street Nov 21, 2011 11:50 am
Boeing (BA) is prepared for the worst.
The worst would be the extremely unlikely event that "sequestration" actually occurs, cutting $500 million in defense spending over 10 years, on top of the longer-term downward trend in defense spending as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq wind down.
"As we look forward to where the U.S. budget is headed, at a minimum expected a $500 billion reduction over 10 years, and a maximum of a trillion over 10 years," said Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, at a recent Bank of America/Merrill Lynch investor seminar. The latter would include the impact of sequestration.
"We are assuming that worst-case scenario, designing our cost structure to accommodate a $1 trillion cut," Muilenburg said. "We are preparing ourselves and have been preparing ourselves for that worst-case budget scenario."
A congressional "super committee" on Monday may announce it has failed to reach an agreement on deficit spending that would trigger automatic across-the-board spending cuts to a wide variety of domestic programs and the Pentagon budget, starting in January 2013.
If the worst-case scenario does not occur, Muilenburg said, that creates opportunities. But Boeing, he added, knows what other successful companies know, that "in a defense down cycle budget cycle, it's very important to not hunker down," but rather to invest.
Boeing's other strategies, which it has frequently discussed during the past year, include an effort to expand international defense and security sales in order to offset the decline in U.S. sales. Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said 83% of BDS revenue, which totaled $32 billion in 2010, is from government contracts, with the vast majority from the defense department. About 17% of BDS revenue is from international sales: The unit's goal is that international sales will generate 25% to 30% of revenue by 2013.
Additionally, Boeing has sought to expand into other related businesses including security, intelligence and energy management at military bases. And of course, Boeing is shielded from declines in defense spending by its vibrant commercial aviation sector, which accounts for about half of revenue.
BB&T Capital Markets analyst Carter Leake said that while defense contractors face obvious challenges from the current defense environment, Boeing appears to be better positioned than many of its peers.
"We are not naive to the fact that all of the global defense suppliers can't all be right when they say increased international sales will be their savior, but if we look at the big, upcoming international fighter opportunities, Boeing's platforms are clearly the next best choice," Leake said.
In particular, Boeing's F18 Super Hornet appears to offer particular advantages in price and readiness over the F-35. So far, Boeing has made about 500 deliveries of the F18, a fighter plane developed for the Navy that entered service in 1999.
By contrast, the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F35 has faced delays, rising costs and mounting debate over its future, although it does have strong backing from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
"Unfortunately for Lockheed, the F-35 program is by far our country's most expensive defense program," Leake said. "As such, the program is just too big a target for defense doves to ignore.
"We continue to believe that Boeing has effectively positioned themselves as part of the defense austerity solution with their 'capable but affordable' mantra," he added. "Every F-35 delay or cost increase only strengthens the case for Boeing's F-15 and F-18 platforms which are proven, significantly cheaper, and ready for delivery."
Teale Group analyst Richard Aboulafia, however, said that while questions may surround the F35, "the idea that the F35 gets killed is pure fantasy. There is too much at stake."
Three versions of the F35 are planned. One, targeted to the Marine Corps, would enable short takeoffs and vertical landings aboard amphibious ship. "Budget-cutters have begun to look on Marine Corps aviation acquisition as a real splurge," Aboulafia said. "The plan got really ambitious and expensive.
"But the defense industrial base is organized in a way that hedges against serious defense cuts," he said. "Even if the F35, that is Lockheed, really is vulnerable, I don't think (the impact) would be disproportionate. Everybody is so diversified in their portfolio that I think the impact would be fairly evenly spread."
In trading early Monday, Boeing shares were down $1.04 at $66.42, while Lockheed Martin was trading down $1.35 at $73.75.
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/thestreet-lockheed-martin-lockheed-martin-stock/11/21/2011/id/38025
Bulgaria Dashes Saab's Fighter Jet Deal Hopes for Now
Defense | November 21, 2011, Monday| 440 views
Bulgaria will not be purchasing Gripen fighter jets from Sweden's Saab for the time being, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov declared at a news conference with his Swedish counterpart Fredrick Reinfeldt.
Saab's Gripen has been one of the major bidders for Bulgaria's long-anticipated purchase of new fighter jets, which was supposed to be started in 2012 and completed by 2015.
"Bulgaria won't be buying strategic fighter jets from Sweden in 2012 since we are still paying off the arms deals that we inherited from the previous government. We are checking out leasing options so that we don't burden Bulgaria's budget for 2013 too much," Borisov explained before journalists during his press conference with Reinfeldt.
Bulgaria's Defense Ministry already announced in end-October 2011 that it will not be starting the tender for the long-anticipated purchase of fighter jets for the Bulgarian Air Force in 2012, as it planned.
The delay is caused by the fact that instead of receiving a budget equaling 1.5% of the GDP in 2012, the Defense Ministry's total funding will amount to only 1.2% of the GDP, under the draft 2012 State Budget Act approved by the Borisov Cabinet and the Parliament, Defense Minister Angelov explained.
Even though the Defense Ministry will get the biggest state subsidy of all government ministries according to the draft legislation – a total of BGN 950 M – and its total budget will be BGN 980 M when adding its own revenues – it will actually be smaller by BGN 10 M than it was in 2011, and will amount to only 1.2% of the GDP.
Gen. Angelov said the greater problem is not the specific reduction but the failure to reach the overall goal of spending 1.5% of the GDP on defense set in the Bulgarian White Paper on Defense.
Reaching the target of 1.5% of the GDP would have meant an additional BGN 200 M to set aside for the military budget, he explained.
"The 2012 State Budget Act will necessitate changes in the Development Plan for the Armed Forces, and our Investment Program because we have been allocated a budget amounting to only 1.2% of the GDP," the Defense Minister declared.
He explained further that his institution will keep up the work on the tender for the purchase of new multipurpose fighter jets for the Bulgarian Air Force regardless of the smaller budget; however, the tender will be pushed back, and will not be started in 2012 because of the shortage of funding.
Back in September 2011, in a "butter before guns" statement, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov said the country is in no hurry to pick a brand of strategic fighter jets and to make a purchase,.
"We will buy new fighter jets only when it becomes absolutely necessary as [required by] our membership in NATO, because the planes are very expensive. One fighter jet could cost more than EUR 100 M," the Prime Minister stated at an event dedicated to the 100th anniversary of Bulgarian aviation.
His words can be taken to mean that the Bulgarian Defense Ministry will take its time with one of its main goals – the much-talked about purchase of new fighter jets for the Bulgarian Air Force.
According to the investment plan of the Bulgarian Defense Ministry made public in April 2011, it will pour BGN 2 B in armament purchases and military modernization projects by 2020.
Apparently, the investment plan will have to be modified as a result of the lower defense budget, as Defense Minister Anyu Angelov.
About half of this sum is expected to go for the purchase of new multi-purpose fighter jets for the Bulgarian Air Force. The long-anticipated armament deal has been stressed as the main priority for the Defense Ministry because at present Bulgaria still has only Soviet-made planes with even the most modern ones – MiG 29 – approaching rapidly their expiration date.
Various reports and Defense Minister Anyu Angelov himself have indicated that Bulgaria will most likely choose from among fighter jets of Swedish company Saab called Gripen, US-made F-16, and Eurofighter Typhoon. Bulgaria will probably buy 8 new fighter jets, with 2015 being the indicative delivery date.
Referring to the almost completed purchase of Cougar and Panther helicopters from Eurocopter, a highly troubled deal, and the purchase of Spartan C-27J transport planes from Alenia Aeronautica, the PM said the Bulgarian Air Force had gone ahead with modernization.
Tags: Alenia Aeronautica, Spartan, military aircraft, Bulgarian Air Force, Anyu Angelov, Defense Minister, Boyko Borisov, Prime Minister, Bulgarian Army, Defense Ministry, Eurocopter, helicopter, Cougar, Panther, EADS, Bulgarian Navy, Bulgarian Air Force, Krumovo, air base, Graf Ignatievo, Gripen, Eurofighter, Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin, F-16, Saab, Sweden, Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt
» Subscribe to receive alerts by email for any of these keywords.
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=134150
PICTURE: Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter
By: Craig Hoyle London
02:45 21 Nov 2011
Lockheed Martin has rolled out the UK's first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to be delivered in 2012.
As the first F-35 to have been manufactured for an international partner, aircraft BK-1 will now enter a period of functional fuel system checks at Lockheed's Fort Worth site in Texas. It will then undergo "ground and flight tests in the coming months", the US-based airframer said.
© Randy Crites/Lockheed Martin
The UK ordered three STOVL F-35Bs to participate in the US-led programme's initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase, but subsequently switched its interest to acquiring the larger F-35C carrier variant to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. Its third IOT&E aircraft is likely to be in the preferred production configuration, with this change to be enabled under an agreement with the US Navy.
Once delivered, the UK's aircraft will participate in joint test activities to be performed in the USA.
"This is a major milestone in the JSF programme for the UK, and we look forward to starting to operate the first British F-35s next year," said Grp Capt Harv Smyth, the UK's Joint Strike Fighter national deputy.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lockheed-rolls-out-uks-first-joint-strike-fighter-365167/
Eindelijk weer eens Gripen NG nieuws... Het is wel heel stil in het noorden.
Swedish PM pushes for fighter jets deal
Associated Press
2011-11-21 10:31 PM
Sweden's prime minister says his country is interested in selling Gripen NG planes to Bulgaria.
Frederik Reinhardt confirmed after talks with his Bulgarian counterpart Boiko Borisov on Monday that the Swedish defense industry was interested in such a deal. Gripen NG is owned by Saab AB.
Bulgaria has repeatedly said it wants to meet its NATO obligations by buying eight new fighter jets to replace its old Russian-built aircraft, but was forced to postpone plans because of a reduced defense budget for next year.
Borisov confirmed Bulgaria's interest saying leasing options also have been checked so that "the 2013 defense budget would not be burdened too much."
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1766188
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/11/2011 | 17:19 uur
PICTURE: Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter
Lockheed Martin has rolled out the UK's first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to be delivered in 2012.
UK's eerste van de enigste 3 stuks F-35B !
Ben heel benieuwd of de B-versie de bezuinigen zal overleven
Citaat van: Harald op 22/11/2011 | 17:27 uur
UK's eerste van de enigste 3 stuks F-35B !
Ben heel benieuwd of de B-versie de bezuinigen zal overleven
Ik ook!
Maar bij gebrek aan een alternatief....
De C daar in tegen? Ik geloof niet dat de USN wakker zal liggen van het verlies van de C, dit wordt ruimschoots goed gemaakt door de SH en de (als aanvulling) toekomstige X47 met daarnaast het eventuele vooruitzicht op Boeing's inspiratie voor de FA/XX (als deze het levenslicht mag zien)
De C als interim voor slechts 10, 15 of maximaal 20 jaar is ook voor de Amerikanen te kostbaar.
Lockheed Martin Completes Assembly Of The First International F-35 For The United Kingdom
FORT WORTH, Texas, November 22nd, 2011 -- The first international Lockheed Martin [NYSE:LMT] F-35 Lightning II rolled out of the factory Sunday evening. The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence will use the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) jet, known as BK-1, for training and operational tests.
BK-1 will undergo functional fuel system checks before being transported to the flight line for ground and flight tests in the coming months. The jet is scheduled to be delivered in 2012.
"This first F-35 for the first international program partner is symbolic of the proud partnership we share with the United Kingdom," said F-35 Executive Vice President and General Manager of Program Integration Tom Burbage. "Working together in a spirit of collaboration, we are providing the men and women of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy with unmatched 5th Generation capabilities, while delivering advanced technology sector jobs to the U.K."
Group Captain Harv Smyth, the U.K.'s Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) national deputy stated, "This is a major milestone in the JSF Programme for U.K., and we look forward to starting to operate the first British F-35s next year. JSF is ideally suited for U.K.'s future Combat Air capability needs, since it provides a world-class 5th Generation air system, which is capable of operating from both the land and our new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier."
The U.K. will play a vital role in the F-35's global production, follow-on development and sustainment over the next 40 years, bringing strong economic benefits to the country.
"This program delivers unrivalled Combat Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (Combat ISTAR) capability to the U.K. Armed Forces, as well as being a major economic driver by sustaining thousands of jobs in the U.K. over more than two decades," added Lockheed Martin Aero U.K. Director Paul Livingston.
Global participation is a centerpiece of the F-35 program and essential for its success and affordability through economies of scale. The program is comprised of nine partner nations: the United States, U.K., Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. In October 2010, Israel selected the F-35A as the Israel Air Force's next generation fighter and is scheduled to receive the F-35 through the U.S. government's Foreign Military Sales process. Additionally, Japan and the Republic of Korea are currently considering the F-35 to recapitalize their fighter fleets.
The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.
BAE Systems, headquartered in the U.K., brings a rich heritage of capabilities to the F-35 program, including short takeoff and vertical landing experience, advanced lean manufacturing, flight testing and air systems sustainment.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/1122ae-f-35.html
Initial Canadian F-35s unable to track troops:
Date: Tuesday Nov. 22, 2011 8:53 PM ET
OTTAWA — The first dozen or so F-35s slated to arrive in Canada won't be equipped with software that allows the stealth fighters to communicate with ground forces, a feature designed to prevent incidents of friendly fire.
The initial operating system also won't be equipped with a program that helps the fighters communicate with older aircraft, such as the Air Force's Aurora surveillance planes.
The software isn't expected to be added until an upgrade program is introduced in 2019 -- three years after the Royal Canadian Air Force begins taking delivery the advanced multi-role fighter.
The absence of both items in the initial operating system is alluded to in heavily-censored access-to-information documents, obtained by The Canadian Press and referenced in military publications in the United States.
The system that helps distinguish between friend and foe is known as a Blue Force Tracker, a GPS-enabled device, and its absence means the computers of the first F-35s will not be able to link with ground troops until software is updated.
Aside from being a communications tool, the tracker acts as a check against friendly fire.
Also missing is a feature known as a Link 16, which allows highly advanced aircraft to exchange data, such as text messages, with ships and other, older aircraft in real-time.
Not having either of them could mean that the country's first F-35s would have to stick close to home until the systems are installed and crews are trained in their use.
Officials with the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, declined to answer questions about the software upgrades, which are divided into a series of blocks.
"Lockheed Martin isn't discussing Block 4 content at this time," said Keelan Green of Thornley-Fallis, an Ottawa company that handles media queries for the U.S. defence giant.
National Defence headquarters in Ottawa also declined comment and referred questions to the Pentagon's joint strike fighter office, which did not respond.
According to the Harper government, being able to operate with allies in complex air-to-ground missions, such as the recently concluded campaign over Libya, is one of the major selling points of the F-35.
It was revealed a few weeks ago that the initial batch of Canadian stealth fighters would not be able communicate in the Arctic without modification -- or until the 2019 software update.
Winslow Wheeler, an expert on the American F-35 program who used to work with the U.S. General Accounting Office, said even after the updates are installed, there's still a learning curve.
"Like any new piece of hardware, it'll take years to work them into your force and years to figure out what the limitations are with the system and how to work around it and it'll take money to fill the holes," he said.
Lockheed Martin has long said that the first aircraft would only have basic software. The absence of such key capabilities goes a long way perhaps to explaining why the Canadian government has decided to stagger its purchase of 65 jets out over seven years, with the bulk of them arriving after 2020.
Canada's current fleet of CF-18s reach the end of their service life that year. Opposition parties hammered the Conservative government last week, demanding to know what the back-up plan might be if the F-35 program is cancelled in the U.S. -- or delayed any further.
The program is already up to seven years behind schedule.
Wheeler warned politicians that they should be paying attention to those kinds of details and nailing down how much of the software upgrades are covered by the initial purchase -- or if they are regarded as sustainment costs.
"This is the kind of game our defence departments play when they want to squeeze the price a little bit," said Wheeler. "It's the continuing story of these kind of problematic systems. The more you scratch the surface, the more you find things missing -- or delayed."
Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino has said there is a Plan B in the case of more F-35 hang ups, but he refused to discuss it and would only focus on the impending purchase, which could cost taxpayers between $16 billion and $30 billion, depending upon the estimate.
The Australians, concerned about delays, have opted to purchase a handful of the Boeing Super Hornets, the upgraded version of the F-18. At the same time, the U.S. Air Force has delayed retiring 350 of its F-16 Fighting Falcons in favour of upgrading them until the F-35 arrives.
The U.S. marines inked a deal this week with Britain to buy their entire mothballed Harrier jump jet fleet. The idea would be to cannibalize the British planes for parts in order to keep their vertical take-off jets functioning until 2025.
There has been no similar discussion in Canada.
"You'd think they'd be asking Boeing for some figures on service life extension plans," said Wheeler.
Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111122/f35-canada-report-111122/#ixzz1eVY1o0D3
U.S., Swedish air forces conduct squadron exchange program
Swedish Air Force and 48th Fighter Wing airmen participated in a week-long squadron exchange program here, which concluded Nov. 18.
Swedish JAS-39 Gripen pilots went up against F-15C Eagle and F-15E Strike Eagle pilots in simulated combat scenarios to train with and learn from each other.
The 493rd Fighter Squadron "Grim Reapers," operating the F-15Cs, acted as hosts for the Gripen fighters and their crew. The 492nd Fighter Squadron "Madhatters" and 494th Fighter Squadron "Panthers," operating the F-15Es, also participated in the training.
"I thought the training was a huge success, and to work with our sister wing from Sweden was outstanding," said Capt. Mike Culhane, the 493rd FS C-flight commander. "We executed our mission along with the Swedish pilots seamlessly. We were very impressed with the Gripen; it's a very capable aircraft."
For the Swedish pilots, they said it was a great opportunity to learn and fly in a different location.
"It's really good for our new guys to be in a new environment and see how things work at another base, a whole other country," said 2nd Lt. Jonas Eriksson, a Swedish Gripen pilot.
The training centered on air-to-air exercises between the American F-15s and Swedish JAS-39s, allowing the pilots of both airframes to gain experience with dissimilar aircraft. Some of the training consisted of basic fighting maneuvers against the F-15s and large force employments scenarios.
"The aim for us is to improve our interoperability and to fly against aircraft different than ours," said Lt. Col. Joergem Marqvardsem, who is the Swedish Air Force 211 commander and Gripen pilot. "For most of our pilots this is the first time flying against F-15s, so the training was superb in attaining that experience."
The exercises also provided an opportunity for allies to come together and form friendships.
"U.S. Air Forces in Europe is important to Sweden, so the main thing with this training is to continue the long-lasting friendship between our two nations," said Maj. Lars Karlsson, the Swedish Air Force 211 Squadron project officer. "We are very pleased and impressed with the hospitality, resources and support we received from the 48th Fighter Wing and want to return the favor by inviting them for training to our wing in Sweden next time."
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/u-s-swedish-air-forces-conduct-squadron-exchange-program-38508/#ixzz1eWspshuk
En nu word ik nieuwsgierig hoe beide toestellen tegen elkaar in dogfight presteren
We were very impressed with the Gripen; it's a very capable aircraft ... ja en ...
U.S., Swedish air forces conduct squadron exchange program
extra info : http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/news/video/index.asp?cid=65&sid=24071
Citaat van: Harald op 23/11/2011 | 13:08 uur
U.S., Swedish air forces conduct squadron exchange program
En nu word ik nieuwsgierig hoe beide toestellen tegen elkaar in dogfight presteren
We were very impressed with the Gripen; it's a very capable aircraft ... ja en ...
Misschien een nette, politieke manier om te zeggen "We got our butts kicked".
Citaat van: Enforcer op 23/11/2011 | 13:52 uur
Misschien een nette, politieke manier om te zeggen "We got our butts kicked".
Of om te zeggen dat ze aardig mee konden maar geen partij waren.
Ik ben reuze nieuwsgierig naar de resultaten.... feiten en geen speculaties.
Volgens een analyse van de Noorse Luchtmacht, na oefeningen met Gripens, is dat de Gripen qua manouevreerbaarheid vergelijkbaar is met de F-16A block 15. Deze variant is merkbaar wendbaarder dan bijvoorbeeld de veel zwaardere F-16C block 50/52. Dit is ook de reden dat onze Klu Viper MLU's graag door de VS werden ingezet tijdens de beginfase van ops Allied Force om de MiG-29's te pareren.
De Gripen heeft door zijn kleinere radar tegenover de F-15C natuurlijk een nadeel in BVR scenario's.
Enkele jaren geleden. Zweedse Gripen C/D's oefenen tegen Amerikaanse F-15C's en .... F-22A Raptors.
Volgens het oefen scenario moesten de Zweden altijd hun radar aan hebben staan. In een oorlog wordt echter niet met dit soort regels gewerkt. Dus gingen de Zweden hun radar vaak in een passieve / steelse modus gebruiken, waarbij de radar alleen radar signalen opvangt.
Hun praatijzers werden ook in stiekeme versleutelde modus gezet, en de IFF transponders gingen uit. Vervolgens ging men meestal 16 - 32 km en soms tot wel 50 km uit elkaar vliegen en maximaal gebruikmakend van hun Netwerk Enabled Capaciteiten.
Wat een verassing voor de Amerikanen! Off the record reactie van de Yanks: >:( >:( our @$$ @i#@ed
Citaat van: Poleme op 23/11/2011 | 18:59 uur
Volgens een analyse van de Noorse Luchtmacht, na oefeningen met Gripens, is dat de Gripen qua manouevreerbaarheid vergelijkbaar is met de F-16A block 15. Deze variant is merkbaar wendbaarder dan bijvoorbeeld de veel zwaardere F-16C block 50/52. Dit is ook de reden dat onze Klu Viper MLU's graag door de VS werden ingezet tijdens de beginfase van ops Allied Force om de MiG-29's te pareren.
De Gripen heeft door zijn kleinere radar tegenover de F-15C natuurlijk een nadeel in BVR scenario's.
Enkele jaren geleden. Zweedse Gripen C/D's oefenen tegen Amerikaanse F-15C's en .... F-22A Raptors.
Volgens het oefen scenario moesten de Zweden altijd hun radar aan hebben staan. In een oorlog wordt echter niet met dit soort regels gewerkt. Dus gingen de Zweden hun radar vaak in een passieve / steelse modus gebruiken, waarbij de radar alleen radar signalen opvangt.
Hun praatijzers werden ook in stiekeme versleutelde modus gezet, en de IFF transponders gingen uit. Vervolgens ging men meestal 16 - 32 km en soms tot wel 50 km uit elkaar vliegen en maximaal gebruikmakend van hun Netwerk Enabled Capaciteiten.
Wat een verassing voor de Amerikanen! Off the record reactie van de Yanks: >:( >:( our @$$ @i#@ed
;D
Dit soort zaken moeten toch intern bij de Westerse luchtmachten bekend zijn, zoals NL? Waarom blijft men dan blind varen op die F35?!
how the F-15 can defeat the Su-30MKI's
USAF pilot describes IAF Su-30MKI performance at Red Flag-08
An unnamed US Air Force officer, who is obviously a Nellis F-15 pilot, lectures an audience with incredible details about the Indian Air Force Su-30MKI performance at Red Flag 2008.
If you have any interest in tactical aircraft at all, you must watch these two videos. Learn details about the Cope India fiasco, problems with Russian fighter jet engines, how the F-15 can defeat the Su-30MKI's vectored thrust, and why the Indians apparently won't be asking for more 1 v 1 dogfights with the USAF.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/usaf-pilot-describes-iaf-su30m.html
Zie Link voor 2 filmjes met uitleg van de F-15 pilot
IDSA Comment: F-35 is not an Ideal Choice for India .. Voor wie wel dan ??
The recent Pentagon report on US-India Security Cooperation which indicates the possible sale of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to India has created a hubbub in the media. Some have even gone to the extent of suggesting that New Delhi should scrap its ongoing, half-a-decade, effort to procure 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft from European countries and instead buy the F-35, the only fifth generation fighter that is available for international customers.
However, a careful analysis would show that the F-35 is not an ideal choice for India for a variety of reasons ranging from the delay in its developmental schedule, a tight production line, prohibitive cost, India's own efforts to jointly develop and produce a fifth generation fighter with its traditional supplier, Russia, and little technological or industrial benefits that would accrue to India from the F-35 purchase.
The first and foremost reason why F-35 is not the ideal choice for India is that the fighter is yet to come out from its developmental phase to the production floor and for exports. The radar-evading plane, the biggest-ever collaborative project involving the US and eight international partners (UK, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy Turkey and Australia), is still facing many design and technological complexities, which have pushed back the original induction schedule by three years from 2013 to 2016.
Even if New Delhi believes in the revised induction schedule and places orders now, deliveries to India are unlikely to commence immediately thereafter. With over 3,000 assured orders for the F-35, including 2,443 units from the US alone, Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the plane, would be constrained in meeting its export obligations before executing the existing orders.
The second reason why F-35 is of little relevance to India is because New Delhi's own efforts to jointly build and develop the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) with Russia. Consequent to the government-to-government agreement in 2007, India's state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Rosoboronexport of Russia signed an agreement in 2010 for the preliminary design (PD) of the FGFA at a cost of $295 million.
As per the agreement, HAL and Sukhoi Design Bureau (Russia) will undertake the PD for 18 months, followed by Full Scale Design and Development to be undertaken in a separate contract. India has already made it clear that it wishes to procure around 250 FGFAs, with the likely induction starting from 2018 onwards. Given this, it will be quite difficult, if not impossible, for India to go with the US which would be the only county in the world to operate two classes of 5th generation fighters (F-22 and F-35) in the coming years.
The third reason why F-35 is not an ideal choice for India is because of the fighter's prohibitive cost. As reported by the Pentagon's Select Acquisition Report, issued in December 2010, the unit procurement cost of F-35 (at 2010 prices) stands at $132.8 million. For the non cost-sharing international customers, the unit cost would be much higher because they are expected to pay a part of the F-35's developmental cost, which has ballooned to total nearly $55 billion at the end of 2010.
The higher price for non-partnering nations is evident from the unit cost of $144.7 million that Israel has agreed to pay for 19 of these fighter aircraft. At this price tag, affordability becomes the key issue for India, whose whole annual defence capital acquisition budget barely matches with the US's one year F-35 acquisition cost.
Although it can be argued that a few F-35s can perform the role of many existing or planned planes in the IAF's inventory, this argument does not hold ground as the ongoing debate in India between numbers and capability still favours the former.
Last, but not the least, from the defence industrial and technological point of view, there is little that India can benefit from the procurement of F-35, which, if at all happens, will most likely be an off-the-shelf purchase, rather than involve technology transfer to India for license production.
Technological secrecy has been a major cornerstone of the US defence programme in general and F-35 in particular. It is noteworthy that despite the F-35 being a multi-country developmental project, core technologies have been denied by the US to its partner nations. This has often been a stumbling block between the US and its cost-sharing partners, forcing some to threaten to quit the project or reduce their procurement numbers of F-35s from what was originally intended. Even the UK, the closest ally of the US and the only level-1 partner for the F-35 programme, has been denied some core technologies to independently maintain and upgrade the fighter. Compared to this likely technology denial, India's initial contribution to the FGFA is believed to be around 25 per cent, which can progressively increase if HAL shows maturity in its indigenisation process.
Given the technological and industrial benefits of the FGFA and the absence thereof with respect to the F-35, it makes little sense for India to choose the F-35.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/130656/why-f_35-is-far-from-ideal-for-india.html
Citaat van: Enforcer op 23/11/2011 | 20:19 uur
Dit soort zaken moeten toch intern bij de Westerse luchtmachten bekend zijn, zoals NL? Waarom blijft men dan blind varen op die F35?!
In de jaren 80 was Nederland nog van plan om de F-16A vanaf 1999 te gaan vervangen door een Europees jachtvliegtuig.
Door het einde van de Koude Oorlog loopt de ontwikkeling van de Typhoon en Rafale flink vertraging op. Plus men vindt de Euro canards geen volwaardige jachtvliegtuigen van de vijfde generatie. Want: geen supercruise (supersonische kruissnelheid); geen stealth; geen AESA.
De Amerikanen dachten begin jaren 90 via het vijfde generatie Multi Role Fighter project na over een F-16 vervanger.
Om een Euro canard acceptabel te maken als vervanger voor de F-16A vanaf 2010, zou deze moeten worden voorzien van een AESA en aanzienlijk krachtiger motoren die i.p.v. ca. 16.400lbs (Rafale) & 20.250lbs (Typhoon) minimaal 23.000 pond en ideaal 27.000 pond maximaal vermogen zouden kunnen leveren.
De Euro canards hebben nog steeds geen productie rijpe AESA's en er zijn geen plannen en geld voor bovengenoemde krachtige motoren varianten.
De MRF werd uiteindelijk het JSF, welke werd verkocht als 'vijfde generatie steels en netwerk centrisch jachtvliegtuig' en nog 'spot goedkoop' ook.
Het JSF zou aanvankelijk ook kunnen supercruisen, maar die eis maakte de F-35 te duur. Om deze kist betaalbaar en exporteerbaar te houden, werd er qua steelsheid ook flink wat water bij de wijn gedaan. Idem dito voor de netwerk centrische capaciteiten, die overigens de steelsheid in de weg zitten.
Ik heb hier herhaaldelijk gemeld dat ideeen het waarnemingsvermogen aanzienlijk kunnen beperken. En dat is bij het JSF luchtkasteel ook het geval.
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/11/2011 | 18:55 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 23/11/2011 | 20:19 uur
Dit soort zaken moeten toch intern bij de Westerse luchtmachten bekend zijn, zoals NL? Waarom blijft men dan blind varen op die F35?!
In de jaren 80 was Nederland nog van plan om de F-16A vanaf 1999 te gaan vervangen door een Europees jachtvliegtuig.
Door het einde van de Koude Oorlog loopt de ontwikkeling van de Typhoon en Rafale flink vertraging op. Plus men vindt de Euro canards geen volwaardige jachtvliegtuigen van de vijfde generatie. Want: geen supercruise (supersonische kruissnelheid); geen stealth; geen AESA.
De Amerikanen dachten begin jaren 90 via het vijfde generatie Multi Role Fighter project na over een F-16 vervanger.
Om een Euro canard acceptabel te maken als vervanger voor de F-16A vanaf 2010, zou deze moeten worden voorzien van een AESA en aanzienlijk krachtiger motoren die i.p.v. ca. 16.400lbs (Rafale) & 20.250lbs (Typhoon) minimaal 23.000 pond en ideaal 27.000 pond maximaal vermogen zouden kunnen leveren.
De Euro canards hebben nog steeds geen productie rijpe AESA's en er zijn geen plannen en geld voor bovengenoemde krachtige motoren varianten.
De MRF werd uiteindelijk het JSF, welke werd verkocht als 'vijfde generatie steels en netwerk centrisch jachtvliegtuig' en nog 'spot goedkoop' ook.
Het JSF zou aanvankelijk ook kunnen supercruisen, maar die eis maakte de F-35 te duur. Om deze kist betaalbaar en exporteerbaar te houden, werd er qua steelsheid ook flink wat water bij de wijn gedaan. Idem dito voor de netwerk centrische capaciteiten, die overigens de steelsheid in de weg zitten.
Ik heb hier herhaaldelijk gemeld dat ideeen het waarnemingsvermogen aanzienlijk kunnen beperken. En dat is bij het JSF luchtkasteel ook het geval.
French Defense Minister Gérard Longuet has said the Rafale had shown in the Libyan operations that the present M88 engine met the UAE's requirements. That assertion may well be what UAE officials had in mind, when they privately say: "Don't tell us what our requirements are."
Laird said a General Electric-Snecma co-development, would be based on General Electric's F136 engine technology, and would make sense for upgrading the Rafale.
Wellicht biedt bovenstaande voldoende vermogen om ook de Rafale meer competatief te maken (als het er ooit van komt)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8315802&c=FEA&s=CVS
Zomaar wat concepten gevonden die het (nog) niet gered hebben.
De Harrier II is een fraai CAD design.
http://eforum1.cari.com.my/viewthread.php?action=printable&tid=483689
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/11/2011 | 18:55 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 23/11/2011 | 20:19 uur
Dit soort zaken moeten toch intern bij de Westerse luchtmachten bekend zijn, zoals NL? Waarom blijft men dan blind varen op die F35?!
In de jaren 80 was Nederland nog van plan om de F-16A vanaf 1999 te gaan vervangen door een Europees jachtvliegtuig.
Door het einde van de Koude Oorlog loopt de ontwikkeling van de Typhoon en Rafale flink vertraging op. Plus men vindt de Euro canards geen volwaardige jachtvliegtuigen van de vijfde generatie. Want: geen supercruise (supersonische kruissnelheid); geen stealth; geen AESA.
De Amerikanen dachten begin jaren 90 via het vijfde generatie Multi Role Fighter project na over een F-16 vervanger.
Om een Euro canard acceptabel te maken als vervanger voor de F-16A vanaf 2010, zou deze moeten worden voorzien van een AESA en aanzienlijk krachtiger motoren die i.p.v. ca. 16.400lbs (Rafale) & 20.250lbs (Typhoon) minimaal 23.000 pond en ideaal 27.000 pond maximaal vermogen zouden kunnen leveren.
De Euro canards hebben nog steeds geen productie rijpe AESA's en er zijn geen plannen en geld voor bovengenoemde krachtige motoren varianten.
De MRF werd uiteindelijk het JSF, welke werd verkocht als 'vijfde generatie steels en netwerk centrisch jachtvliegtuig' en nog 'spot goedkoop' ook.
Het JSF zou aanvankelijk ook kunnen supercruisen, maar die eis maakte de F-35 te duur. Om deze kist betaalbaar en exporteerbaar te houden, werd er qua steelsheid ook flink wat water bij de wijn gedaan. Idem dito voor de netwerk centrische capaciteiten, die overigens de steelsheid in de weg zitten.
Ik heb hier herhaaldelijk gemeld dat ideeen het waarnemingsvermogen aanzienlijk kunnen beperken. En dat is bij het JSF luchtkasteel ook het geval.
Wat probeer je te zeggen, dat er weinig verschil meer over is en dat alle varianten duur zijn?!
Harriers sold to the US for £110m
24 November 2011
The UK has sold 72 Harrier jump jets to the US Marine Corps for £110m ($180m) to provide spare parts for the Marines' AV-8B Harrier fleet, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
The deal includes the spare parts and support equipment that the UK would have used to maintain the Harrier fleet. Reports in the US earlier this week said that the spares deal alone was worth $50m.
Two of the UK's Harriers have been kept in Britain to be offered to naval museums.
The MoD says the scrapping and sale of Britain's Harriers will save around £1bn overall, and Ministers have trumpeted the deal as providing "great value for both countries".
The scrapping of the Harrier fleet was announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review in October 2010, and left the country without fixed wing carrier strike capability until the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter and Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers at the end of the decade.
The MoD says the Harriers' fate was sealed by cuts prior to the SDSR which "left the Harrier force too small to carry out enduring operations in Afghanistan whilst maintaining the contingent capability we need for other operations such as Libya".
The sale will "enable investment in a more modern and capable mixed fast jet fleet", a ministry spokesman said.
The UK has yet to take delivery of its first Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which was finished at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas, factory earlier this week. Final fleet numbers for the UK's JSF fleet have yet to be confirmed.
Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Peter Luff said that Harrier had served the UK with "great distinction" but that "retiring it eight years earlier than planned was the right decision".
"Had we taken the decision in the SDSR to decommission Tornado instead we would not have been able to carry out the missions that were required simultaneously in Libya and Afghanistan. It was essential to retire older, less capable aircraft to allow us to invest in more modern, cutting-edge fast jets.
"As our operations over Libya proved, we have the capability to project decisive air power and can utilise our extensive basing and over-flight rights to great effect.
"The sale of Harrier is evidence of our commitment to working closely with our allies and represents a good deal for both countries."
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18115
The F-35: Who has it right on Norway?
Posted on Fri, Nov 25, 2011, 2:52 pm by Colin Horgan
For a little while now, when predicating its questions for the government on the F-35 fighter jets, the New Democrats have taken to listing off the countries that are wavering on their purchase, before asking why the government won't just turn around and hold a full competition.
New NDP defence critic David Christopherson did it last week:
"Mr. Speaker, the U.S. defense secretary now says that because of ballooning costs, it may be time for them to hit the eject button on the F-35 deal. Israel, Australia, Turkey and Norway are still reconsidering their purchases," he said.
"Yesterday, the associate minister of defence claimed again that our allies '...understand the importance of the F-35 program'. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, he missed the memo," Kellway said. "Let me share the news: Israel, Australia, Turkey, and Norway are all reconsidering their orders, and the Americans are talking about pulling out entirely."
The government was heartened, then, when Roger Ingebrigtsen, the Norwegian secretary of state to the ministry of defence told MPs in the defence committee that his country is dedicated to sticking with the fighter jet program.
"I want to say that my government is strongly committed to the F-35," he said. "I hear some noise in Canada. We have exactly the same noise [at] home in Norway. But you have to stay in it. It's our job to give the next generation the same kind of security as my grandfather offered me in my generation [at] home in Norway. So that's F-35. It's not easy. It can't be easy to do things like this but it's necessary."
With this, the government can rest its case, right?
The NDP might want to consider striking Norway from its list in question period, but it's probably worth remembering at this point how Norway came to agree to purchase 50-odd F-35s.
Thanks to a diplomatic cable leaked by Wikileaks in 2010, it became apparent that the U.S. put concerted pressure on Norway to purchase the planes, partially out of fear that if Norway decided to purchase the rival Saab Gripen fighter (at right above), other nations might reconsider the Lockheed Martin product.
"A decision by one of the original partners to purchase a competitor would be damaging. In addition, the timing of the [Norwegian] decision comes before the Danish and Dutch decisions on the F-35," read one cable. "While Norway's decision will not determine the Danish or Dutch decision, a Norwegian decision to buy Gripen could have an impact."
The U.S. worked to push the Norwegians diplomatically to pick the F-35, but, as Embassy Magazine laid out in 2010, the Americans realized it would look poor if they were seen to be attempting to pressure the Norwegians.
"'We needed to avoid any appearance of undue pressuring (which was construed as 'threatening' Norway in its sovereign decision-making process), but we couldn't let stand the view that the choice didn't matter for the relationship,' reads a 'Lessons Learned' cable written after the F-35 was selected. 'We opted for 'choosing the JSF will maximize the relationship' as our main public line. In private, we were much more forceful.'
As a result of the effort, the embassy reported that 'the tide has turned in Norway.' 'The media have recently run a number of articles from active duty and retired officers extolling the strengths of the F-35. Commentators who have previously said the Gripen is the best plane have been attacked by leading Parliamentarians for being ill-informed.'
On Nov. 20, 2008, Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and then-defence minister Anne-Grete Strom-Erichsen announced that the government was going with the F-35. The timing of the announcement and veracity with which the US-built plane was endorsed by the two Norwegian leaders surprised embassy officials."
And as noted by Stephen Trimble on his Dew Line blog at Flightglobal around the same time, there was another key F-35-related decision that did not occur:
"Saab had previously requested that the US approve a Raytheon-made active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar — a key upgrade as the non-stealthy Gripen competed against the stealthy, Northrop Grumman AESA-equipped F-35 in Norway. Because the AESA was American technology, the US was not obligated to release the radar to a foreign competitor.
So it didn't.
'Given this potential impact of AESA releasability on the Norway competition, and possibly the Denmark competition,' says a US cable dated 8 July, 'we suggest postponing the decision on AESA releasability for the Gripen until after Norway's decision in December.'"
All of which to say the opposition isn't quite correct in saying Norway is "reconsidering" its order – it approved a purchase of 4 planes earlier this year, and if we take Ingebrigtsen at his word, it sounds as though it is set on buying a few dozen more. Let's not forget why.
© 2011 iPolitics Inc.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/11/25/the-f-35-who-has-it-right-on-norway/
US cuts threaten JSF order
BY DAVID ELLERY
26 Nov, 2011 01:00 AM
America's trillion dollar Joint Strike Fighter program will not survive the latest round of US budget brinksmanship in its current form, an Australian analyst has warned.
Air Power Australia's Peter Goon says by this time next year the number of planes on order for the US will have been slashed and one, or even two, of the three variants may be axed.
He said this would have a significant effect on Australia's plans to acquire up to 100 of the planes at a cost of about $10billion.
Pundits say if the US reduces the number of planes it is going to buy then the unit cost to customers, such as the RAAF, will rise.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Andrew Davies agrees political infighting over the US budget could result in changes to the JSF program. He does not expect the outcome to be as apocalyptic as that suggested by Mr Goon however.
''Further deferrals [in the number of planes being ordered by the US military] are a plausible eventuality,'' he said. ''But the future of the US Air Force is the first order concern [for the Americans]. There is no fallback option. What will they [the US] do? Revive the even more expensive F-22?''
Up to 30per cent of JSF production is earmarked for overseas customers such as Australia.
The JSF is at risk because of a budget control act signed into law by US President Barack Obama on August 2 that committed the Pentagon to $450million in defence cuts over the next decade.
While the Republicans, who insisted on the punitive clauses, now want to reverse those cuts, the President is refusing to give them any oxygen ahead of next year's election in the US.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has already warned the automatic cuts - due to start taking effect in 2013 - have the potential to gut the US military.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/us-cuts-threaten-jsf-order/2371578.aspx
Fraaie video beelden van een Eurofighter boven Dubai
VIDEO: Frontaufnahme des Eurofighter Typhoon über den Emiraten
http://www.fliegerweb.com/militaer/news/artikel.php?show=news-8354
The first F-35 stealth fighter plane is expected to arrive in Israel in 2015
17:08 GMT, November 26, 2011 (Released Nov. 22, 2011) | The F-35 fighter planes will be based at the Israeli Air Force's (IAF) Nevatim Airbase in the Negev, the IAF commander has determined.
The deal to acquire the F-35 was signed in the last year and the planes are expected to arrive in Israel in the next few years.
The Nevatim Airbase welcomed the decision to make it the future home of the F-35. The decision to place the F-35 at Nevatim was based on infrastructure and training considerations, as well as the Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) vision to move many of its bases to the Negev.
Operational and environmental considerations also played a role in the decision.
"At Nevatim, we are proud that we have been chosen to receive the F-35 fighter plane, which will turn Nevatim into a strategic base constituting a powerful element in the battle array," said Brig. Gen. Ronen Samchi, the commander of Nevatim.
The Nevatim Airbase was established in 1982 and participates in all of the IAF's operational activities. In April 2008, the base was expanded and it now has the longest runway in the Middle East.
The F-35 is a stealth fighter aircraft produced by the American Lockheed Martin company. It is considered to be the most advanced fighter aircraft currently being developed. It is a multi-mission aircraft, intended both for attack and interception. Its development began in 2003 as a joint initiative of the United States and the United Kingdom.
The first F-35 is expected to arrive in Israel in 2015, but Israeli pilots will be able to start training on it in the U.S. a year before that.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/30087/?SID=777954743f6d06528324ff82f1e8ed9c
Het wordt spannend in Zwitserland.
Volgens de Zwitserse pers wordt op 30 november of op 7 december de knoop doorgehakt omtrend de aankoop van 22 gevechtsviegtuigen (Rafale, Eurofighter of Gripen NG)
Al zou het kunnen dat de Zwitserse groenen (het zou ook weer eens niet zo zijn) als nog een referendum weten af te dwingen waardoor de keuze met maanden vertraagt zal worden.
Citaat van: dudge op 27/11/2011 | 15:13 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/11/2011 | 14:34 uur
Het wordt spannend in Zwitserland.
...
Volgens de Zwitserse pers wordt op 30 november of op 7 december de knoop doorgehakt omtrend de aankoop van 22 gevechtsviegtuigen (Rafale, Eurofighter of Gripen NG)
...
Eerst zien, dan geloven, maar de aankoop van welk van deze drie toestellen dan ook zal goed nieuws zijn.
Mmmhhh, er zijn nogal wat Zwitsers die zich afvragen of zo'n Kampfjaeger (nog) wel nodig zijn voor een Zwitserland dat middenin de EU ligt.
Die dingen zijn hoe dan ook niet goedkoop en met 22 stuks ga je niet veel aanvangen. Anderzijds hoop ik wel op een aankoop door de Zwitsers, alleen al om te zien wát zij aankopen.
EF is reeds verkocht aan buurland Oostenrijk...
De oude versie van de Gripen vliegt ook bij andere kleine Europese landen...
Maar zowel de Gripen als Dassault hebben echt nood aan een Exportsuccesverhaal...
Citaat van: dudge op 27/11/2011 | 17:58 uur
[Precies, en stellen dat je niks nodig hebt is vrij kansloos tegenwoordig. Al kun je je natuurlijk afvragen wat je nodig hebt, maar je moet toch iets hebben, al is het maar in QRA en tbv de kennis. En daarvoor is 22 genoeg.
Vergeet niet dat de aanstaande keuze ook de opmaat is naar een één type luchtmacht voor de Zwitsers, de volgende discussie zal gaan over de vervanging van de 30+ F18's. (door een vervolgorder op de aanstaande keuze)
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 27/11/2011 | 17:42 uur
Die dingen zijn hoe dan ook niet goedkoop en met 22 stuks ga je niet veel aanvangen. Anderzijds hoop ik wel op een aankoop door de Zwitsers, alleen al om te zien wát zij aankopen.
EF is reeds verkocht aan buurland Oostenrijk...
De oude versie van de Gripen vliegt ook bij andere kleine Europese landen...
Maar zowel de Gripen als Dassault hebben echt nood aan een Exportsuccesverhaal...
Je zou haast denken dat de EF de meest logische keuze is, daar in tegen ligt de Rafale op punten voor en scoord de Gripen bij de Zwitsers onder de maat.
Maar je hebt gelijk, zowel de Rafale als de Saab Gripen hebben een order nodig. Saab om zijn NG te lanceren en Dessault om ziijn produktielijn te waarborgen.
Persoonlijk denk ik dat de Gripen, desondanks zijn prijs, geen kans maakt (tenzij er een referendum gehouden gaat worden), de Zwitsers kijken immers ook vooruit en ook hier bestaat grote twijfel of Saab over 10-20 jaar nog een autonome fabrikant van gevechtsvliegtuigen is.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 24/11/2011 | 20:19 uur
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/11/2011 | 18:55 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 23/11/2011 | 20:19 uur
Dit soort zaken moeten toch intern bij de Westerse luchtmachten bekend zijn, zoals NL? Waarom blijft men dan blind varen op die F35?!
In de jaren 80 was Nederland nog van plan om de F-16A vanaf 1999 te gaan vervangen door een Europees jachtvliegtuig.
Door het einde van de Koude Oorlog loopt de ontwikkeling van de Typhoon en Rafale flink vertraging op. Plus men vindt de Euro canards geen volwaardige jachtvliegtuigen van de vijfde generatie. Want: geen supercruise (supersonische kruissnelheid); geen stealth; geen AESA.
De Amerikanen dachten begin jaren 90 via het vijfde generatie Multi Role Fighter project na over een F-16 vervanger.
Om een Euro canard acceptabel te maken als vervanger voor de F-16A vanaf 2010, zou deze moeten worden voorzien van een AESA en aanzienlijk krachtiger motoren die i.p.v. ca. 16.400lbs (Rafale) & 20.250lbs (Typhoon) minimaal 23.000 pond en ideaal 27.000 pond maximaal vermogen zouden kunnen leveren.
De Euro canards hebben nog steeds geen productie rijpe AESA's en er zijn geen plannen en geld voor bovengenoemde krachtige motoren varianten.De MRF werd uiteindelijk het JSF, welke werd verkocht als 'vijfde generatie steels en netwerk centrisch jachtvliegtuig' en nog 'spot goedkoop' ook.
Het JSF zou aanvankelijk ook kunnen supercruisen, maar die eis maakte de F-35 te duur. Om deze kist betaalbaar en exporteerbaar te houden, werd er qua steelsheid ook flink wat water bij de wijn gedaan. Idem dito voor de netwerk centrische capaciteiten, die overigens de steelsheid in de weg zitten. Ik heb hier herhaaldelijk gemeld dat ideeen het waarnemingsvermogen aanzienlijk kunnen beperken. En dat is bij het JSF luchtkasteel ook het geval.
Wat probeer je te zeggen, dat er weinig verschil meer over is en dat alle varianten duur zijn?!
De moraal van mijn verhaal is, dat het JSF in de markt is gezet met een sterke beeldvorming van de aanzienlijk modernste jager tegen de laagste prijs (oorspronkelijk zelfs lager dan die van de Gripen C/D) a ruim USD 37 miljoen. Plus industriele deelname zou veel banen en een gouden winst opleveren. Want, volgens LockheedMartin, je investeert 1 US dollar in het JSF en je krijgt er 10 US dollar voor terug ;D. Die effectieve beeldvorming blijft bij velen overeind, ondanks tegenstrijdige feiten. Dan komen er vervolgens ook nog eens prestige en groepsdenken bij. En blijft men blind voor de feiten.
Uiteindelijk is er inderdaad weinig verschil qua prestaties & vaardigheden tussen de mogelijke F-16 vervangers. Waarbij de Euro-canards met uitzondering van de Gripen C/D duur zijn en de F-35A TE duur.
TOM BURBAGE
Lockheed Martin's F-35 General Manager
Published: 27 November 2011
Tom Burbage is a man used to living under pressure. As Lockheed Martin's executive vice president and general manager for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, he's charged with delivering on the largest defense program ever, worth more than $382 billion, involving nine nations.
Tom Burbage, Lockhee Martin general manager (Staff)
With defense budget cuts looming in America and many partner nations, production numbers - key to controlling unit cost - may be dialed back, setting in motion a potential death spiral. For its part, the Pentagon still plans to buy 2,443 planes for its three services - although the F-35B short takeoff and landing variant for the Marines remains on probation - with several hundred more to be bought by partner and other nations.
Despite delays and cost growth, the former U.S. Navy test pilot who took over JSF in 2000 after managing the F-22 program is confident of delivering, as promised, an affordable stealthy, supersonic combat jet.
Q. It is budget-cutting season. All government is really focused on decreasing costs, and there is talk of reducing total production numbers. The talk is a lot less today about cutting the Marine version. What if these threats come to pass?
A. That is part of the nature of our business. As we build these sophisticated machines and we build them at a rate that we get economies of scale, and if we lose economies of scale, then we have to fight through that to keep the program competitive on cost. I think there is a value proposition associated with F-35 that was very valid when the contract was signed in 2001 and is even more valid today, which is the ability to fly and fight as a joint service, multinational operation, with the same basic equipment, good economies of scale, good economies of commonality, and transfer data across the whole operational base of the airplane.
Q. You are in negotiations for Lot 5. How much is it going to be, how many aircraft is it going to include, and when are you going to conclude those negotiations?
A. The Congress appropriated the airplanes for LRIP Lot 5 in April of this year. We are in the process of just beginning the negotiations for that production lot today. The Congress appropriated 35 planes, but it's likely the quantity will be somewhat less than that as airplanes are used for other purposes in terms of bill-paying and things like that. So somewhere between 30 and 35 airplanes, and we'll start that negotiation by the end of the month.
Q. Do you have a cost figure that you'd be comfortable talking about?
A. We have submitted a cost per variant. All three variants are in this production lot, but it's probably not appropriate to talk about that as we just started negotiations.
Q. JSF critics always talk about the need for the airplane but also the high unit cost. What is the unit cost going to be for production lots downstream?
A. The unit-cost curve for our business decreases with time and decreases with quantity. It's a function primarily of the number of airplanes bought in any one year, but it's also a function of the total quantities bought, you often hear costs quoted around both of those. Cost is a complicated subject to discuss because there are three variants, they're clearly coming down across the cost-improvement curve, we've dropped the cost of the airplane 42 percent on the first four production lots, and we're still on a path to aggressively drive that down.
If you look at just the touch labor, we're on an aggressive learning curve that is as good as we've ever seen before in our industry. A lot of cost is in our supply chain so there is a lot of negotiation that has to take place with our suppliers as we do this. There are a lot of factors that go into this, but again, if we can bring down the cost-quantity curve, we can drive this airplane to the point where it's very competitive with airplanes that are being bought today on the world market.
Q. What is a ballpark target price you're shooting for? Is it an $80 million airplane?
A. It's somewhat subject to the quantities that are bought, but if you look at the program of record today and you come down over the course of the program, it would be down in the $70 million range if you buy it in today's dollars.
Q. Let's talk about the need for the airplane. Critics say a short-range aircraft isn't needed.
A. I would challenge the short-range piece of it; the airplane has a very high fuel fraction, the amount of fuel it carries relative to its total weight. All three airplanes are considered long-range fighters; they maybe are shorter range compared to bombers or things that have lots of fuel in them, but the fuel quantity does drive the size of the airplane and we are somewhat constrained by that in a fighter-type airplane.
Q. And it's beyond the F-16 and other aircraft it will replace?
A. Considerably beyond. And in the stealthy mode, we carry the weapons internally, which lowers the drag, which also increases the very long-range performance that we're seeing. We're meeting our requirements for range today for all three variants.
Q. The F-35 has been criticized for its cost per flight hour. What is cost per flight hour, and what factors are included?
A. Cost per flight hour is a projection at this point; we don't have any operational airplanes out there actually flying. There are test airplanes out there. Soon we'll start the train jets down at Eglin, and soon we'll start to build up the operational fleet and we'll be able to measure it. Right now, all we have is forward-looking projections.
When we designed the airplane, we went through it nose to tail to drive down the maintenance man-hours per maintenance task and put the kinds of things in the airplane that, if you were a maintainer, you would want to make sure we designed into the airplane. We're talking about economies of scale that come with the global fleet that we're going to be managing across the airplanes. We're talking about lots of features that should drive the overall cost ownership down. In addition, if you look at these long-term peacekeeping or combat-type operations that involve all three services and our allies, the cost of conducting those operations should go down just by the fact there is common equipment being used. So I think the focus has been in all the right areas to drive down the cost of ownership.
Our current cost models that we use to project forward many, many years, our estimates go out 50 some years now. Those cost models are primarily based on the facts that have been gathered on legacy operations, so we haven't incorporated the real changes that we are going to see on the F-35, for good reason: We haven't seen those changes yet, they're not operational. On this program, more than any I have been associated with, we try to collect every cost that goes into owning and operating the airplane. That's not the case with the way legacy costs are collected for airplanes that are flying today.
Q. The F-35 has eight international partners. How do you keep them on board?
A. The international dimension of this program is really critical to the project for a number of reasons. One is that it's envisioned that we're going to fly and fight as coalitions going forward, and our front-line allies fly and fight with front-line U.S. fighters. So this is a chance for them to recapitalize and take advantage of the bigger recapitalization that's going on with the U.S. services. So it's very important from that perspective.
From an industrial perspective, part of the agreement between the governments when they created this program was that there would be economic ties that came with it. If you think about it, the defense industries that are in small countries that are buying the F-35 will not be fed directly by their government. We use a best-value model as opposed to the traditional offset model, which is important. But both of those dimensions of the project are really key to the program.
I also work all international aspects of it, and I can tell you that all the partners are on a track to procure the airplane pretty much to their original plan and pretty much in their original quantities. There's been some movement, but really not as much movement as we've seen inside the U.S. services.
Q. With regard to flight testing, is the aircraft's actual performance matching the computer models?
A. Our models today are very good in the large part of the flight envelope; there are still parts of the flight envelope that are non-linear, and the behavior of the airplane is not completely predictable in the transonic regime and stuff like that. We basically are seeing things that are pretty much aligning with our forward-looking projects and in the bulk of the envelope it's pretty much right on.
All three variants have had a good year flying, we're about 10 percent ahead on both flights and flight test points for all three models. We had a great at sea period on the USS Wasp, I think we showed that not only can the airplane can perform on the ship, but that the ship doesn't need any major modifications to handle the airplane. And that was a question mark.
Q. The issue of the software has been raised as an area of concern by senior officials. How do you respond to that?
A. I would say the software stability on this airplane has been nothing short of tremendous. We have about 80 percent to 85 percent of that code flying on the airplane today, another 10 percent will come on at the end of this year when what we call Block 2A goes into flight test. Most of the remaining development is in the area of sensor fusion and weapons. So I think we're very, very satisfied with the way the software has been performing to date.
Q. The program was supposed to benefit from past experience and lessons learned. How did we get here?
A. We had a major reset in about the 2004 -2005 timeframe. We were designing the aircraft sort of in series and not in parallel, and we were doing the Air Force airplane first when our weight model started predicting a potential of a problem on the Marine Corps jet, which is much more sensitive to weight. At that point the program stopped and we were given some direction to change the order and go attack the Marine Corps - the most challenging of the three designs first. That was another 18 months of engineering that we hadn't planned on in the original schedule. Most of the follow-on since then has been related to that. And in 2010 we also extended the flight test program by adding quite a bit of additional testing mostly driven by the fact that the flight sciences testing on the STOVL jet was lagging behind at the time. Since then it's caught up, we've more than made up for the behind schedule situation and we're now ahead of schedule.
- By Vago Muradian.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8383482&c=FEA&s=INT
Helaas in het Duits, derhalve alleen de kop en de link geplaatst met hierin de Zwitserse "redenen" waarom de Saab Gripen het niet zou redden t.o.v. de Rafale en de Eurofighter.
Kampfjet Gripen mit unbefriedigenden Noten
http://bazonline.ch/schweiz/standard/Kampfjet-Gripen-mit-unbefriedigenden-Noten/story/10934828
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 08:12 uur
TOM BURBAGE
Lockheed Martin's F-35 General Manager
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8383482&c=FEA&s=INT
Wat een bullshit - verhaal verteld die Tom toch weer.
F-35 een long-range toestel .... hihih hahaha ... :crazy: ... heeft minder range dan een F-16
het grote voordeel : Stealth en interne bays...... zeker
een slurpende Flying Turtle...
Citaat van: Harald op 28/11/2011 | 09:34 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 08:12 uur
TOM BURBAGE
Lockheed Martin's F-35 General Manager
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8383482&c=FEA&s=INT
Wat een bullshit - verhaal verteld die Tom toch weer.
F-35 een long-range toestel .... hihih hahaha ... :crazy: ... heeft minder range dan een F-16
het grote voordeel : Stealth en interne bays...... zeker
een slurpende Flying Turtle...
Het is en blijft een verkoop verhaal en geloof maar dat Tom Burbage op hete kolen zit.
Citaat van: dudge op 28/11/2011 | 09:46 uur
Mwa, redelijk hete kolen nu, maar zijn onderneming maakt elk jaar nog grof winst, dus wat dat betreft doet hij precies waar zijn onderneming voor in het leven is. Alleen zijn er wat problemen op de lange termijn, maar dat wordt wel aangepakt.
Het is toch zuur om dit te lezen, wetende dat hij ongestraft verhalen kan vertellen die niet in lijn zijn met de werkelijkheid.
Als commerciële onderneming voeldoen ze zeker aan de enige doelstelling, het genereren van winst!
Vwb alle verhalen, waar of niet waar, rondom de JSF... natuurlijk komt hij daar ongestraft mee weg in het kader van de "Learning Curve"
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig naar het forum commentaar op de Zwitserse conclusie rondom de Saab Gripen:
Is deze conclusie omdat men op voorhand een twee motorige kist wil, of een kist van een van de buurlanden of schuild er waarheid in deze bewering(en)?
Citaat van: dudge op 28/11/2011 | 10:47 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 10:08 uur
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig naar het forum commentaar op de Zwitserse conclusie rondom de Saab Gripen:
Is deze conclusie omdat men op voorhand een twee motorige kist wil, of een kist van een van de buurlanden of schuild er waarheid in deze bewering(en)?
Mijn Duits is niet zo goed, dus echt iets bijzonders lees ik niet. Alleen dat de Gripen niet goed zou presteren, maar niet waarom. Wat ik erover gelezen heb werkt de Gripen gewoon heel anders (lees ook verhaal van Poleme eerder), en is een 'linaire' vergelijking dus niet echt mogelijk. Die wordt nu wel gemaakt, en dat is, denk ik, jammer. De Rafale presteert het beste zeggen ze, nouja, prima kist dus.
Dat begrijp ik, maar een (definitief) Zwitsers nee tegen de Gripen, in mijn ogen de deperfecte kist voor de Zwisers, is misschien een teken aan de wand over de toekomst van deze kist ook in relatie tot de NL short-list.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 10:08 uur
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig naar het forum commentaar op de Zwitserse conclusie rondom de Saab Gripen:
Is deze conclusie omdat men op voorhand een twee motorige kist wil, of een kist van een van de buurlanden of schuild er waarheid in deze bewering(en)?
In de DTI van november staat een artikel over de Update mogelijkheden van RUAG als het gaat om de F-5...
Daarin staat dat defensie zelf eigenlijk helemaal de aanschaf van nieuwe toestellen nog niet echt nodig acht. maar dat het met name de politiek (regering) is die nieuwe toestellen wil.....
CitaatSwitzerland's decision on an F-5 upgrade is open. The defense professionals want to hold back and parliamentarians want to go forward with a new aircraft. But RUAG's ambitions to become part of the fighter's remarkably long life are firm.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2011/11/01/DT_11_01_2011_p16-384120.xml
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 10:08 uur
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig naar het forum commentaar op de Zwitserse conclusie rondom de Saab Gripen:
Is deze conclusie omdat men op voorhand een twee motorige kist wil, of een kist van een van de buurlanden of schuild er waarheid in deze bewering(en)?
Ik denk dat de eisen die de Zwitsers hebben gesteld aan het nieuwe toestel zwaarder/hoger zijn dan de prestatie's van hun huidige F-18's
maar eigenlijk moet de huidige aankoop hun oude F-5's vervangen. Dus de eisen zijn veel zwaarder/hoger dan die van de F-5's (is dit eerlijk ??)
Ze willen later in 20.... als vervanger voor hun F-18's hetzelfde toestel hebben als wat er nu gekozen gaat worden.
Daarom zijn de eisen hoger gesteld, zodat ze straks in z'n totaliteit betere toestellen hebben dan nu en hetzelfde toestel (logistiek juist)
Dan zijn de prestatie's van een 1-motorig toestel al gauw te laag als men gaat vergelijken, zoals bijvoorbeeld : de totaal mee te dragen wapenlast.
Dus niet : kg per m2 vleugeloppervlak
Ik denk : de Zwitsers willen een 2-motorig toestel, zo zijn nu hun eisen geformuleerd. straks 1 type toiesel voor zowel de vervanging van hun F-5's als de F-18's
Of dit nodig is voor een land als Zwitserland (neuraliteit) kan men zich afgaan vragen, maar dat is een ander punt
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 10:56 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 28/11/2011 | 10:47 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 10:08 uur
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig naar het forum commentaar op de Zwitserse conclusie rondom de Saab Gripen:
Is deze conclusie omdat men op voorhand een twee motorige kist wil, of een kist van een van de buurlanden of schuild er waarheid in deze bewering(en)?
Mijn Duits is niet zo goed, dus echt iets bijzonders lees ik niet. Alleen dat de Gripen niet goed zou presteren, maar niet waarom. Wat ik erover gelezen heb werkt de Gripen gewoon heel anders (lees ook verhaal van Poleme eerder), en is een 'linaire' vergelijking dus niet echt mogelijk. Die wordt nu wel gemaakt, en dat is, denk ik, jammer. De Rafale presteert het beste zeggen ze, nouja, prima kist dus.
Dat begrijp ik, maar een (definitief) Zwitsers nee tegen de Gripen, in mijn ogen de deperfecte kist voor de Zwisers, is misschien een teken aan de wand over de toekomst van deze kist ook in relatie tot de NL short-list.
Vergeet trouwens niet dat het hier gaat om de gewone Gripen C/D die beoordeelt is en niet de NG versie. Dat is op zich al vaag omdat in andere gevallen de Gripen NG versie concureert met JSF, Eurofighter en Rafale.
Maar goed, als men perse een tweemotorige versie wil dan maakte de Gripen dus bij voorbaat al geen kans........
Citaat van: dudge op 28/11/2011 | 11:31 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 28/11/2011 | 11:00 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/11/2011 | 10:08 uur
Ik ben wel nieuwsgierig naar het forum commentaar op de Zwitserse conclusie rondom de Saab Gripen:
Is deze conclusie omdat men op voorhand een twee motorige kist wil, of een kist van een van de buurlanden of schuild er waarheid in deze bewering(en)?
Ik denk dat de eisen die de Zwitsers hebben gesteld aan het nieuwe toestel zwaarder/hoger zijn dan de prestatie's van hun huidige F-18's
maar eigenlijk moet de huidige aankoop hun oude F-5's vervangen. Dus de eisen zijn veel zwaarder/hoger dan die van de F-5's (is dit eerlijk ??)
Ze willen later in 20.... als vervanger voor hun F-18's hetzelfde toestel hebben als wat er nu gekozen gaat worden.
Daarom zijn de eisen hoger gesteld, zodat ze straks in z'n totaliteit betere toestellen hebben dan nu en hetzelfde toestel (logistiek juist)
Dan zijn de prestatie's van een 1-motorig toestel al gauw te laag als men gaat vergelijken, zoals bijvoorbeeld : de totaal mee te dragen wapenlast.
Dus niet : kg per m2 vleugeloppervlak
Ik denk : de Zwitsers willen een 2-motorig toestel, zo zijn nu hun eisen geformuleerd. straks 1 type toiesel voor zowel de vervanging van hun F-5's als de F-18's
Of dit nodig is voor een land als Zwitserland (neuraliteit) kan men zich afgaan vragen, maar dat is een ander punt
Een neutraal land heeft de plicht die Neutraliteit waar te maken, en zal zich dus moeten bewapenen.
natuurlijk, lijk me toch logisch. Zwitserland is bijna even groot als Nederland
Doet Zwitserland mee met internationale actie's, zoals lLbie, Afganistan, Irak, Yoegoslavie ?
Nee, om zijn neuraliteit.
Dus de nieuwe toestellen zullen/moeten het eigenland beschermen.
US Air Force looks to dramatically extend F-15 service life
Boeing has launched a four-year structural analysis of the US Air Force F-15 fleet, with the aim of doubling to quadrupling the service lives of the two major variants.
The USAF has also revealed new interest in critical avionics and mission system upgrades for the 40-year-old airframe, as it seeks to keep at least some of its 414 F-15C/D fighters and F-15E fighter/bombers flying for decades to come.
A USAF F-15C fighter has already entered a four-year fatigue test cycle at Boeing's factory in St Louis, Missouri, said Brad Jones, the company's director of F-15 development programmes. It will be joined soon by an F-15E Strike Eagle.
Boeing's tests will determine if the service life of the F-15C/D can be extended from 9,000h to 18,000h, Jones said. The service life of the F-15E was originally set at 8,000h but could potentially be raised to 32,000h after the tests are complete.
If the USAF peacetime annual flight-hour average is set at 300h, the service life increase should keep both models flying for several more decades.
The fatigue tests will indicate possible sources of structural failures. Only four years ago, the USAF grounded its F-15Cs after a longeron failure caused one aircraft to disintegrate in flight. An investigation showed that longeron cracks were limited to a handful of F-15C/Ds, which were immediately retired.
The USAF is also considering a significant capability upgrade for the entire F-15 fleet. The aircraft now rely on three ageing systems for self-defence - the ALR-56C radar warning receiver, ALQ-135 jammer and ALE-45 countermeasures dispenser. On 20 November, the USAF issued a "sources sought" notice for a digital electronic warfare system.
Boeing is already proposing such a system developed by BAE Systems to export customers of the F-15 Silent Eagle.
The self-defence upgrade, which the USAF calls the eagle passive/active warning survivability system (EPAWSS), is included in the service's next five-year spending plan, but funding will not be assured until this year's final budget reviews are complete in January, Jones said.
If funded, the EPAWSS programme will follow USAF F-15 upgrades, including an active electronically scanned array radar and a new core processor, Jones said.
Preserving and upgrading the F-15 fleet would mark a sharp departure in USAF plans. Less than two years ago, Lockheed Martin officials talked openly of replacing the F-15E with the F-35A Lightning II.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-looks-to-dramatically-extend-f-15-service-life-365200/
http://www.wrcoc-aic.org/Archive/RS/RS08/RS08-27.pdf
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/ED_63279.html
Citaat van: Harald op 28/11/2011 | 14:36 uur
US Air Force looks to dramatically extend F-15 service life
Des te meer een reden om de F15SE op de NL verlanglijst te plaatsen, goedkoper (met uizondering van de SGNG) en beter dan alle andere westerse alternatieven.
Is er iemand met enige politieke invloed in Den Haag die mee leest???
Jet commitment keeps carrier strategy alive
By Carola Hoyos and James Blitz
Britain's commitment to buy the US-led Joint Strike Fighter combat aircraft and the diplomatic and commercial sensitivities surrounding the project were the prime factors that saved the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers last year, according to information released by the government on Monday.
A report by the National Audit Office, the government's accountancy watchdog, shows that the Ministry of Defence's determination to procure the Joint Strike Fighters was the biggest driver behind the decision to retain the carriers in the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010.
"The single biggest influence, particularly on affordability, was the commitment to procure the JSF," the NAO said in a report released on Monday after receiving Cabinet Office papers relating to the decision.
The documents do not detail the information given to ministers at a critical meeting of the UK National Security Council on October 7 2010, days before the SDSR was published.
However, it says ministers discussed "a range of issues that remain diplomatically and commercially sensitive," noting the security council "was made aware of the implications of changing order numbers and timing".
Britain is the US's only major partner in JSF and during the discussions surrounding the security review the US made clear it opposed deep UK defence cuts.
Commercial considerations would have played a particularly important role. Britain's industrial stake in the JSF venture is estimated to be worth £100bn over the next 45 years, and the programme is forecast to create 25,000 jobs.
The final decision taken by the National Security Council was to build two carriers, making one operational with JSF and holding the other carrier "in extended readiness".
However, of four options discussed by the NSC, the two that included suspending the acquisition would have saved more over the long term. The two would have saved more than twice as much as the option closest to that eventually taken.
But since the UK's strategic review, the future commitment of the US to the JSF programme has become more uncertain, given Washington's need to cut its own defence budget.
This has caused increasing concern in the MoD about the speed at which the JSF, otherwise known as the F-35, will be procured for Britain and at what cost.
If the US doesn't press ahead with all aspects of the project as currently configured, the cost will rise for the UK and the US's smaller partners.
Under current plans, Britain is set to buy the so-called "carrier variant"to fly off the Queen Elizabeth carrier when it is completed in 2018.
However, some US politicians and think-tanks are now raising the option of cancelling two variants of the F-35 programme – the "B" short-take off and landing version and the "C" carrier variant – keeping just the "A" land-based version.
One senior MoD figure told the Financial Times this is a "very live issue of discussion" and could raise questions about whether the US will scale back the F-35 programme and rely more heavily on the existing Super Hornet F/A-18s.
"It is not impossible that decision could be taken that would leave us high and dry on our F-35 C programme, and we would need to look for another aircraft," said Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United services Institute. "It's unclear yet whether this is yet a realistic option for the US Navy. But it could be quite tempting, especially if the USN is faced with deep cuts and a platforms versus planes trade-off."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.
Why is Norway Estimating $40 Billion for 52 F-35s While Canada Says 65 F-35s Cost Around $14 Billion?
Posted by:
David Pugliese
Defence Watch
The latest questions in the House of Commons on DND's F35 purchase are focusing on the differences of costs between Norway's purchase and Canada's acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter.
Norway has put the total cost at around $40 billion for 52 aircraft (although the lowest figure sometimes used is around $27 billion. Norwegian officials acknowledge that while they are highly supportive of the purchase they do not know the actual final cost).
So the question has arisen in the Commons about why is Canada spending $14.7 billion (DND's estimate for total F35 procurement and 20 years of maintenance) and Norway is spending much more.
"Norway has acknowledged that the true cost of their 52 F-35s will be $40 billion or more," NDP procurement critic Matthew Kellway said Monday.
He repeated the party's call to put the next generation fighter project out for open bidding.
The Conservative government won't be doing that of course. Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino did not answer the question about the discrepancy in the cost that Norway is paying versus what Canada will pay.
He instead repeated some of his familiar comments. "Our government's preference is to put our trust in our pilots and materiel experts who know the importance of the F-35 program that is producing Twenty First Century fighter jets our military needs while at the same time sustaining quality aerospace jobs across Canada," Fantino responded.
But the question remains – why the cost difference?
Norway's F-35s will be using similar communications software for use over Arctic areas. It is also one of the countries, besides Canada, that is looking at the installation of a drag chute. Both nations are buying the same model of the plane.
Part of the cost difference is on the operating and maintenance life-cycle cost. DND is estimating am operating and maintenance total cost of $7 billion over 20 years for its 65 F35s.
Norway's Defense Minister Grete Faremo, however, stated in June that the operating and maintenance life-cycle cost, spanning 25 to 30 years of projected service for Norway's 52 F-35s is estimated at $26.8 billion. The Norwegians believe it makes more sense to project the cost on the actual life of the aircraft – 25 to 30 years.
Even still, the differences appear quite substantial between the Norwegian and Canadian figures.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/11/29/why-is-norway-estimating-40-billion-for-52-f-35s-while-canada-says-65-f-35s-cost-around-14-billion/
IN FOCUS: Malaysia's fighter contest intensifies ahead of LIMA air show
By: Greg Waldron Singapore
Malaysia's defence minister has said the Typhoon is best for the nation
Malaysia has a commanding position astride two of the world's most strategic waterways, the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea. The importance of these sea lines of communication to major powers such as China, Japan and South Korea cannot be overstated. Through these waters flows the lifeblood of their economies. From the west flows oil from the Middle East and from the east flows finished goods bound for Europe.
Although Malaysia and its neighbours have been at peace for decades, it is worth remembering that in 1941 Japan mounted a major campaign on the peninsula with the objective of securing Singapore and establishing a springboard to the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia. Although a major conflict in the region seems unlikely today, in any such contingency Malaysia will be a factor in the minds of strategic planners.
The country also faces a unique challenge in that it is divided between two distinct land masses, peninsular Malaysia and the island of Borneo, with the large, resource-rich states of Sabah and Sarawak. Malaysia also has a claim to the Spratly Islands, which are subject to competing claims by Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and China. Indeed, China claims the greater part of the South China Sea and is adding the military capabilities to back it up. This is arguably the single most vexing foreign policy issue facing southeast Asia's leaders.
In this context, the Royal Malaysian Air Force faces key decisions about the future of its combat fleet. The main combat strength of the RMAF is a hodgepodge of five types from the USA, the UK and Russia, that offer little or no commonality. It operates eight McDonnell Douglas F/A-18D Hornets, 10 Northrop e_SFlbF/RF-5Es, 14 BAE Systems Hawk 208s, 10 Mikoyan MiG-29s, and 18 Sukhoi Su-30MKMs. The future composition of this force will be the salient element of the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA) 2011 to be held in mid-December.
"The biggest strategic challenges facing the RMAF is how it can project airpower over the territorial waters of Malaysia, particularly into the South China Sea," said Richard Bitzinger, senior fellow at the Military Transformations programme at Singapore's Rajaratnam School of International Studies. "This is where the Malaysians perhaps face their greatest potential threats [from China]. On the operational side, the RMAF seriously needs to build a 'holistic' force, including AEW aircraft, AAR, and centralised command and control."
The RMAF's most advanced type is the e_SFlbSu-30MKM, obtained under a 2003 deal. Its other fighters face serious sustainment issues. The F-5s are increasingly expensive to operate and while the RMAF is apparently satisfied with its F-18s, these 1980s-era aircraft are also increasingly expensive to maintain and operate - not to mention being increasingly dated against the threats Malaysia is likely to face.
The highest priority for the RMAF, however, is the replacement of its MiG-29s. These ageing aircraft have reportedly suffered a number of maintenance issues since their acquisition in the 1990s, with several industry sources claiming the fleet is often grounded. The replacement will be addressed by a long-running 18 aircraft requirement that is unfulfilled - and likely to remain so until after Malaysia's next election, expected in 2012 or 2013.
Contenders for the requirement include the Boeing F/A-18 E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Saab Gripen. The Dassault Rafale may also mount a challenge. An industry source confirmed the French company opened a sales office for the Rafale in Kuala Lumpur earlier this year.
As for the timing of a decision, one industry source calls this the "$64 million question". A request for information was issued in April 2010, and a request for proposals in February this year. Given that Malaysia hopes to field the fighters by 2015-2016, a decision could be announced at LIMA in 2013. As for the aircraft itself, Malaysia is calling for a multi-role aircraft for the aerial supremacy, ground attack, and maritime attack roles.
The F/A-18 E/F, Typhoon, and Gripen will all be present at this year's show. The Gripens will come from the Thai Air Force, which has ordered 12 of the Swedish type. Two UK Royal Air Force Typhoons will be stationed at Butterworth air base to perform a flying display. A full-sized Eurofighter mock-up will be at the show, as will a Eurofighter simulator.
Bitzinger suggests Boeing still has the best shot at winning. "The RMAF already operates older F-18s. Also, the Malaysians may wish to reach out to the USA strategically, to complement its recent purchase of Russian fighters. If not the Super Hornet, the Gripen might make a wiser choice as it is cheaper to buy and operate but, then again, countries don't always buy military equipment for their military rationales."
Despite industry consensus there will be no decision until after the next election, Boeing hopes the winner will be announced soon. "By the time LIMA occurs, the RMAF will have done a thorough evaluation of the major competitors," says the airframer. "The RMAF and the minister of defence should be in a position to make a recommendation to the prime minister for the MRCA [multi-role combat aircraft] programme."
Boeing offers a number of reasons for a Super Hornet buy. "The RMAF can expect significantly improved tactical relevancy for their Hornets when operated alongside Super Hornet aircraft. There are cost and efficiency benefits associated with embedded Super Hornet training, support and operations."
Boeing points out that Malaysia has bought and paid for US-built weapons, which can be easily integrated with the Super Hornet platform. The RMAF is familiar with the type's capabilities owing to the near constant presence of US aircraft carrier battle groups in the region. A source in Malaysia says US Navy pilots flying Super Hornets often conduct dissimilar training against RMAF Sukhoi Su-30s.
Malaysia's ties to the UK, which is leading the Eurofighter campaign in Malaysia, also run deep. In early November, the Royal Air Force sent four Eurofighters to Singapore to participate in a Five Powers Defence Arrangements exercise between the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. Two of these aircraft remained in Malaysia for the month leading up to LIMA.
Of the competitors, the Eurofighter is perhaps the best aircraft for the air-to-air combat role, as this was the primary driver behind its design. The company's campaign director for Malaysia, Ian Malin, says the aircraft has yet to be cleared for a maritime attack weapon since this is not an RAF requirement, but given the timeframes involved in the competition this should not be an issue.
Earlier this year, Eurofighter appeared to receive a boost when Malaysian defence minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was quoted as saying the Eurofighter was the best aircraft for the country. Some industry sources, however, have said his comments may have been politically motivated and not based on an objective assessment of the aircraft.
Perhaps more important than the merits of the aircraft will be the industrial participation rivals are willing to offer. After strong growth in the 1980s and early 1990s, Malaysia has struggled to move up the value chain from manufacturing to true technological innovation and production. Its government is acutely aware the country risks getting stuck in a "middle-income trap", and will look to leverage the MiG-29 replacement programme for maximum industrial benefit at home.
"Boeing continues to support the ongoing growth of Malaysian industry through our partnerships with local industry such as Asian Composites Manufacturing and placement of BCA work packages with other local companies - SME Aerospace and Composites Technology Research Malaysia Aero Composites," says Boeing.
Eurofighter and Saab will also offer attractive offset packages. "Offsets are certainly a major consideration," says Bitzinger. "Who can give the best deal and help the local defence industry with technology and jobs for national industrial development? Next they will look at what buys help with strategic relationships, and here the USA probably has the inside track."
While small compared with other fighter campaigns such as those in India, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, big defence aerospace companies are committed to slugging it out for Malaysia's 18-aircraft fighter requirement. The contenders will be going all out at this year's LIMA.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-malaysias-fighter-contest-intensifies-ahead-of-lima-air-show-365079/
Britain steps up efforts to sell European fighter to Japan
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- British Foreign Secretary William Hague phoned his Japanese counterpart Koichiro Gemba on Monday in trying to sell the European-designed Eurofighter Typhoon to Japan.
Hague explained to Gemba the fighter's "superb" capabilities during the conversation, which lasted about 15 minutes, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said. The plane is among three candidates for Japan's next mainstay air-defense fighter to be picked within the year.
The other two candidate aircraft to replace Japan's aging F-4 Phantom fighters are the F-35 Lightning II fighter, whose development is being led by Lockheed Martin Corp., and the F/A-18 Super Hornet designed by Boeing Co.
Gemba and Hague also agreed to realize British Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to Japan at an early date, according to the ministry.
(Mainichi Japan) November 29, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111129p2g00m0dm006000c.html
Het Zwitserse verhaal wordt (in het Duits) vervolgd.
Störmanöver vor dem Kampfjetentscheid
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Stoermanoever-vor-dem-Kampfjetentscheid/story/16447105
Russian Air Force to get 90 aircraft in 2012
The Russian Air Force will take delivery of about 90 new or modernized fixed and rotary wing aircraft in 2012, a Defense Ministry spokesman said on Tuesday.
The Air Force will receive up to 10 Su-34 Fullback fighter-bombers, about 10 Su-25SM Frogfoot attack fighters, and an unspecified number of Su-35S Flanker-E multirole fighters, Col. Vladimir Drik said.
The Su-35S is Russia's advanced "Generation 4++" fighter.
New acquisitions will also include over 20 attack helicopters, such as the Mi-28N Night Hunter and the Ka-52 Alligator, as well as "highly modernized" Mi-35 Hind helicopters.
The Air Force will also receive about 30 Mi-8 transport and five Mi-26T heavy lift helicopters.
http://www.en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20111122/168934211.html
Citaat van: ottawacitizen op 29/11/2011 | 07:13 uur
Why is Norway Estimating $40 Billion for 52 F-35s
Huh, dat is kort door de bocht 800 mln usd per kist!?!?!!!!!! Diamanten afwerking van de kap misschien?
Video, Switzerland competion as seen by the Swiss themselves
A must see video from the Swiss TV show "Mise au point" about the Switzerland fighter contest. The Journalist had the chance to meet all 3 contenders :
Laage Airbase, Germany, for the Eurofighter
Istres Flight test center, France, for the Rafale
Ronneby, Sweeden for the Gripen
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/11/video-switzerland-competion-view-by.html
Interesting points :
Eurofighter praises its larger radar and powerfull engines, Rafale focuses on its Front Sector Optronics and AESA antenna while Gripen emphasizes on it's small size and cheaper fly away price and maintenance costs.
During his Interview, Fernand Carell, former Swiss Air Force chief and Mirage IIIS pilot, ranks the Rafale first on technical merits, then the Eurofighter and last, the Gripen :
"At the operiational level, the Rafale is the leader" He says.
According to him, the Swiss pilots would prefer the Rafale but he concedes that the final decision will be political and economical.
To the question what car would you compare your aircraft to, the Rafale pilot answer is quite funny :
Eurofighter pilot : A ferrari
Gripen.pilot : A porsche
Rafale pilot : James Bond Aston Martin or Batmobile (lot of hidden gadgets in the Rafale ? Bond did have a DB9 with a cloaking device, didn't he ? ;))
Are There Alternatives To The F-35 Program?
Nov 29, 2011
By David A. Fulghum, Bill Sweetman
Are there alternatives to keep U.S. strike aviation viable if the F-35 program is delayed, reduced or killed by the budget sequestration?
The initial options available to Pentagon leaders, should the Joint Strike Fighter prove unaffordable, range from outright termination of the program to the deletion or delay of either or both the Navy's F-35C or the Marines' F-35B. Terminating the Air Force's F-35A would kill the program, but it could be delayed, or full-rate production for the USAF could be cut back from the current goal of 80 aircraft a year.
"There is no alternative" and "There is no Plan B," JSF advocates have repeatedly said in reaction to any plans to trim the colossal project. However, the threat of sequestration, the reality of fiscal crisis and the certainty of cuts to planned budgets are emerging at a point where the program and Pentagon leadership have yet to produce firm guarantees about the JSF's future in terms of initial operational capability dates, procurement and support costs.
But there also are U.S. and international groups working on plans to sustain other in-production fighters like the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and European products through mid-century to minimize the predicted fighter shortage. Supplementing those less stealthy designs will be unmanned strike designs, standoff weapons, electronic attack devices and signature reduction packages.
Nonetheless, vastly complicating the F-35 issue is the role of international partners. Individually, none of the eight partner nations is expected to take even 5% of the planned production run. But they need aircraft early, with the result that – under the current program of record – the collective partner buy in the low rate initial production (LRIP) phase is comparable in size to that of the USAF.
If the partners respond to delays and cost increases by sliding their own purchases to the right, or by leaving the program altogether, that will reduce production rates and increase unit costs during the LRIP phase, which is designed around a steep ramp-up from a few dozen aircraft annually to more than 200 by the fiscal 2016 buy year.
High production rates (several times higher than any other fighter today) and large numbers have always been the foundation for the JSF's economics, both in terms of procurement and support costs. Major investments have been made in assembly, test and completion facilities, and a complex supply chain involving many small and medium enterprises has been established, premised on large volumes of work. The result is a system that may not be well optimized for the production rates seen in other fighter programs.
Close to two years after then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired program office director Maj. Gen. David Heinz, the JSF effort was declared in critical breach of Nunn-McCurdy limits, and there is no final estimate of delays and overruns, since so far none of the customer services has been able to establish a firm date for initial operational capability.
The project does not even have Milestone B approval (a legal requirement for systems development and demonstration and low-rate initial production.) The original MS-B was issued in 2001 and rescinded last year as a consequence of the Nunn-McCurdy breach.
The Defense Acquisition Board is charged with re-establishing MS-B and was expected to do so in May, but it was kicked back to fall and still has not happened. Part of DAB's job is also to resolve disparities between estimates of procurement and operating costs from the contractors, the program office, and independent reviewers such as Navair and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/11/29/01.xml&headline=Are%20There%20Alternatives%20To%20The%20F-35%20Program
Citaat van: dudge op 29/11/2011 | 10:45 uur
Nee, life cycle kosten. Stel dat de EF 70.000 per uur kost, bij een levensduur van 6000 uur is dat 420 miljoen, plus aanschaf van 120 miljoen zit je verspreid over 40 jaar ook al aan 540 miljoen, en aangezien de F35 in elk opzicht duurder is....het zou zomaar nog flink boven die 800 miljoen kunnen uitkomen.
Met alle respect, als de F35 MEER dan 70.000 euro per uur gaat kosten word ik als belastingbetaler zwaar pissig als er meer dan 30 van gekocht worden... Wat een enorme verspilling ten opzichte van andere (lees betere) kisten en oplossingen... En zelfs een F22 zit daar dik onder. Maar ten opzichte van een op dit moment prima kist, de F16, is het volkomen waanzin als hij daar over heen gaat.
F-15s May Out-Maneuver Sequestration Impact
Nov 29, 2011
By David Fulghum
St. Louis
Even with the F-22 on the ramp, if the F-35 program is delayed or killed, the U.S. and its allies will need more aircraft with a reduced radar signature or the ability to carry standoff weapons at a range to penetrate sophisticated air defenses.
The other requirements for these improved legacy aircraft are the ability to carry conventional and directed-energy weapons, advanced electronic warfare (EW) capabilities and a price tag that is a fraction of a specialized stealth design.
Proponents of the Joint Strike Fighter—including F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin—doubt whether legacy fighters, such as the F/A-18 and F-15 built by rival Boeing, or even Lockheed's own F-16 could be modified to match the capabilities that the JSF delivers.
Indeed, U.S. Air Force leadership remains adamant about maintaining the ability to take apart sophisticated air defenses, and few officials believe there is any substitute for specialized stealth designs such as the F-22 and F-35.
"To not incorporate the technology that is available to the U.S.—and growing in other nations around the world—does not keep pace with the requirements of today's fight," Gen. Gary North, commander of U.S. Pacific Air Forces tells Aviation Week. "What most people don't understand is the growing increase in land- and maritime-based, surface-to-air missiles [which drive the requirement] to have stealth or reduced-radar-cross-section platforms in today's world.
"As air-to-air missiles develop longer ranges, the abilities to see an adversary [earlier in an engagement] and to work in an intensive electronic warfare attack environment are critical. Every nation has to decide what it needs for self-defense and how much they are willing to contribute to it," North says.
But if the stealth fleet becomes too small, it has to be supplemented. That is the niche market being worked by Brad Jones, Boeing's director of F-15 mission systems. The program spans specialized, low-signature variants such as the Silent Eagle for international customers and upgrades to existing F-15C and F-15E aircraft for the USAF. A shrinking U.S. force structure also is part of the formulation, as is the need for international customers to fly interoperable aircraft in short-notice military emergencies such as the NATO-led Libyan campaign.
A first-order question is whether the F-15 is going to be around long enough to purchase new aircraft or upgrade the existing fleets. The evidence suggests that U.S. F-15s, at least, will still be flying combat missions at mid-century.
With new aircraft production slowing down and being cut, a fighter-shortage "bathtub" is looming, meaning there will not be enough to fill operational and training needs. Right now, the Air Force has about 350 F-15Cs and 222 E-model, two-seat strike aircraft. And the service is trying to move quickly to extend the airframe life of both.
A full-scale, F-15C fatigue test is underway at Boeing with the goal of extending the 9,000-effective-flight-hour life expectancy to 18,000 hr.
The Air Force is now also launching a fatigue test program for the stronger-wing, bomb-truck F-15E from its current 8,000-hr. rating to an effective service life of 32,000 hr.
Boeing has contracts to modernize the aircraft with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars that have ranges 2-3 times that of the original 56 nm produced by mechanically scanned radar, say radar specialists. It also has raised the mean time between failures to 2,100 hr. from less than 100 hr.
The APG-82(v)1 radar provides an ability to create high-detail maps for precision targeting of long-range, air-launched weapons. Designed to compound the advantages of the radar is the advanced display core processor (ADCP II) now in development. Moreover, there is a digital EW program in the 2013 budget plan.
"So we can see the Air Force's thought process," Jones says. "The ADCP II is being loaded up with processors. That is the basis of what an aircraft needs for modernization. The Air Force is putting a foundation into these aircraft" for an extended operational future.
The F-15 can carry long-range, glide and powered weapons such as the cruise-missile-size Champ, which is critical for electronic attack. Moreover, the F-22s—operating at higher altitudes and deeper in the threat rings—can provide long-range targeting for the F-15s. The F-15s then supply a large off-board magazine of missiles for the F-22s, which can serve as command-and-control aircraft.
The ADCP II boxes, which are common to the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, are bolted into the aircraft as structure. The core software also is the same so the services both benefit from upgrades.
Another F-15 upgrade option is the digital electronic warfare system (DEWS). It also has gigabits of data available and ports linking the radar, processors and EW systems. That provides the route for running information from DEWS to the radar and other emitters to tailor jamming and electronic attack.
"From the hardware standpoint, we're done," Jones says. "We're now talking about software upgrades. The EW system could include electronic attack and other options. All the hardware is in the array. We put in everything we can. We've added more channels in the array to do the more exotic tasks."
The possibilities are there to create a data beam, load it with algorithms and identify an enemy electronic target of interest. "All that has been thought of," Jones says. "We've put in the processing power, the channels and the data buses. So what you need is the algorithms and the data base to go in the processor."
The lower-signature F-15 Silent Eagle—with canted vertical stabilizers, specialized treatments and materials and other aids—is being proposed to South Korea for its FX-3 program.
"We've already installed the AESA, incorporated the DEWS and put in fly-by-wire," Jones says. "All we're doing extra for [South] Korea is adding a large area display and a conformal weapons bay [for a decreased radar cross section]. But it gives your fighter Day 1, forward-sector stealth. In three hours, you can put the pylons, weapons and fuel tanks on, do your checks and be ready to go. After the special missions are done, you can return to carrying exterior payloads.
"We now have conformal weapons bays," Jones notes. "The engine face has been considered in the changes. We did not change the engine intakes because that would require changing big structure. An option is grill work over the turbine face that is similar to what like was done with the F/A-18 Super Hornets. For a relatively low amount of dollars you can get a certain reduction in signature."
Credit: Boeing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/11/28/AW_11_28_2011_p26-397511.xml&headline=F-15s%20May%20Out-Maneuver%20Sequestration%20Impact&next=10
De Zwitserse in de eindspurt of?
30. November 2011, Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Letzte Gefechte der Kampfjet-Anbieter
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/kampfjet-anbieter_1.13461267.html
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcencio4.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Farabic-typhoon.jpg%3Fw%3D460%26amp%3Bh%3D306&hash=aed5f44b5bc3c45e034a0b1f06beec7ecb4c7d07)
Conformal Fuel Tanks, Storm Shadows, Meteor and IRIS-T missiles: the (really cool) multirole Typhoon offered to the UAE Air Force
I don't really know if this version of the Eurofighter Typhoon will ever become a reality. However, chances seems to be increased after Eurofighter received a quite surprising RFP (Request For Proposal) by the UAE Air Force and especially since Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, Deputy of the country's armed forces, said to the national news agency WAM that the Rafale offer is "uncompetitive and unworkable."
Obviously, what happened in the days of the Dubai Air Show 2011, does not easily imply that 60 Typhoon 2020s (that's the name of the multi-role upgrade) will equip the UAE Air Force which has been under negotiation with Dassault for three years. Nevertheless, the last chapter of the fierce struggle between the two Indian MMRCA contenders shows that the fighter deal in the UAE is far from being closed in spite of the brilliant results achieved during Operation Unified Protector by the "omnirole" Rafale that in July were moved from Solenzara, in Corsica, to Sigonella, in Sicily, to operate closer to the Libyan coast (and closer to the UAE's F-16 Block 60 and Mirage 2000s also deployed there.....).
The one offered to the UAE will probably be a multi-role combat plane that will include all the modification foreseen in the Typhoon 2020 upgrade for India.
Anyway, at least for the moment, and based on the pictorial rendering of the next generation Typhoon, I can't but notice that with CFT (Conformal Fuel Tanks), two Storm Shadow cruise missiles, four Meteor BVR and two IRIS-T or ASRAAM air-to-air missiles, thrust vectoring and a desert camouflage, the Typhoon would not only be a lethal weapon in both the air-to-air and air-to-surface scenarios, but it would be also extremely cool.
Not bad in times of stealth-shaped manned and unmanned planes.
http://theaviationist.com/2011/11/28/typhoon-uae/
Why is Norway Estimating $40 Billion for 52 F-35s While Canada Says 65 F-35s Cost Around $14 Billion?
The latest questions in the House of Commons on DND's F35 purchase are focusing on the differences of costs between Norway's purchase and Canada's acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter.
Norway has put the total cost at around $40 billion for 52 aircraft (although the lowest figure sometimes used is around $27 billion. Norwegian officials acknowledge that while they are highly supportive of the purchase they do not know the actual final cost
So the question has arisen in the Commons about why is Canada spending $14.7 billion (DND's estimate for total F35 procurement and 20 years of maintenance) and Norway is spending much more.
"Norway has acknowledged that the true cost of their 52 F-35s will be $40 billion or more," NDP procurement critic Matthew Kellway said Monday.
He repeated the party's call to put the next generation fighter project out for open bidding.
The Conservative government won't be doing that of course. Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino did not answer the question about the discrepancy in the cost that Norway is paying versus what Canada will pay.
He instead repeated some of his familiar comments. "Our government's preference is to put our trust in our pilots and materiel experts who know the importance of the F-35 program that is producing Twenty First Century fighter jets our military needs while at the same time sustaining quality aerospace jobs across Canada," Fantino responded.
But the question remains – why the cost difference?
Norway's F-35s will be using similar communications software for use over Arctic areas. It is also one of the countries, besides Canada, that is looking at the installation of a drag chute. Both nations are buying the same model of the plane
Part of the cost difference is on the operating and maintenance life-cycle cost. DND is estimating am operating and maintenance total cost of $7 billion over 20 years for its 65 F35s.
Norway's Defense Minister Grete Faremo, however, stated in June that the operating and maintenance life-cycle cost, spanning 25 to 30 years of projected service for Norway's 52 F-35s is estimated at $26.8 billion. The Norwegians believe it makes more sense to project the cost on the actual life of the aircraft – 25 to 30 years.
Even still, the differences appear quite substantial between the Norwegian and Canadian figures.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/11/29/why-is-norway-estimating-40-billion-for-52-f-35s-while-canada-says-65-f-35s-cost-around-14-billion/
ZWITSERLAND KIEST VOOR DE SAAB GRIPEN (volgens nog onvestigde berichten)
Kampfjet-Entscheid offenbar gefallen
Von Hubert Mooser. Aktualisiert vor 24 Minuten
Der Bundesrat soll sich heute für den schwedischen Kampfflieger Gripen entschieden haben. Dies berichten regierungsnahe Kreise gegenüber Bernerzeitung.ch/Newsnet.
http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/schweiz/standard/KampfjetEntscheid-offenbar-gefallen/story/28653803
Citaat van: Harald op 30/11/2011 | 14:19 uur
Why is Norway Estimating $40 Billion for 52 F-35s While Canada Says 65 F-35s Cost Around $14 Billion?
Part of the cost difference is on the operating and maintenance life-cycle cost. DND is estimating am operating and maintenance total cost of $7 billion over 20 years for its 65 F35s.
Norway's Defense Minister Grete Faremo, however, stated in June that the operating and maintenance life-cycle cost, spanning 25 to 30 years of projected service for Norway's 52 F-35s is estimated at $26.8 billion. The Norwegians believe it makes more sense to project the cost on the actual life of the aircraft – 25 to 30 years.
Even aan het rekenen gegaan :Canada : $ 7.000.000.000,00 / 65 toestellen = $ 107.692.308,00 per toestel over 20 jaar
20 jaar = 8000 vlieguren (aanname)
dus per vlieg-uur : $ 13.462,00
Noorwegen : $ 26.800.000.000 / 52 toestellen = $ 515.384.615,00 per toestel over 28 jaar
28 jaar = 11000 vlieguren (aanname)
dus per vlieg-uur : $ 46.853,00
Ik denk dat Noorwegen de goede getallen / cijfers gebruikt.
Vlieguurkosten van $ 46.853,00 is 1,5 x zoveel als een F-15E en 2x zoveel als een F-16
(P.S. graag even een reactie als ik een verkeerde rekensom gemaakt heb ;))
Saab Surges on Optimism Switzerland Will Opt to Buy Gripen Jet
By Sabine Pirone and Benedikt Kammel - Nov 30, 2011 2:43 PM GMT+0100 .
Saab AB (SAABB) surged the most since February in Stockholm trading on a report that Switzerland plans to buy 22 Gripen fighter jets for about 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.29 billion).
Saab gained as much as 8.9 kronor, or 8.2 percent, to 117.5 kronor in Stockholm, the most since Feb. 16. The stock reversed an earlier loss and traded at 117.1 kronor as of 2:35 p.m.
Switzerland has decided against buying the Dassault Aviation SA (AM)'s Rafale or Eurofighter jets, Tages-Anzeiger reported, citing unidentified people close to the government. Spokespeople for Saab and Dassault said they have not been informed of any decision. A Eurofighter spokesman did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
The country is awarding a contract to replace its fleet of ageing Northrop F-5 Tigers. The Swedish defense manufacturer has won export orders to South Africa and Thailand and also is competing with Eurofighter in India. The Swedish aircraft made its first flight in 1988 and entered service in 1993. The first export contract for the 1,320 mile-per-hour aircraft was signed by South Africa in 1999.
Saab is competing against Boeing Co. (BA)'s F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Rafale jet for orders in Brazil, and the company is also pursuing order from Croatia and Bulgaria. The Gripen was eliminated in April from the six-way contest to replace India's aging fleet of MiG-21s, along with the F/A-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)'s F-16.
The Gripen has struggled to win export business in recent years. Norway dealt Saab a blow in 2008 with a contract for 48 Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighters after analysts predicted the Gripen would win. Work on Gripens for South Africa and Thailand runs out in 2012.
For Dassault, losing out in Switzerland further dims the export prospects for its Rafale combat jet, which so far has failed to win a single buyer beyond the French government. Eurofighter has also scaled back output of its aircraft as demand drops.
To contact the reporter on this story: Sabine Pirone in London at spirone@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at bkammel@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-30/saab-surges-on-optimism-switzerland-will-opt-to-buy-gripen-jet.html
Entscheid gefallen (Voor 22 Saab Gripen B/C tbv Zwitserse luchtmacht)
http://www.blick.ch/news/politik/bundesrat-will-offenbar-den-billig-jet-kaufen-188443
Later in de middag volgd (volgens deze krant) de officiële bekendmaking.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/11/2011 | 15:47 uur
Entscheid gefallen (Voor 22 Saab Gripen B/C tbv Zwitserse luchtmacht)
http://www.blick.ch/news/politik/bundesrat-will-offenbar-den-billig-jet-kaufen-188443
Later in de middag volgd (volgens deze krant) de officiële bekendmaking.
Ongetwijfeld gaat Den Haag dit niet volgen; in plaats van een toereikend gevechtsvliegtuig met fixed prijs en de laagste kosten per uur van het rijtje acceptabele kandidaten
hebben wij heeft de KLu en de slaafs volgende politiek liever een vliegtuig waarvan de prijs niet bekend is, dat ons o.m. door de teloorgang van de euro nog meer zal kosten, waarvan de capaciteiten ook nog eens onderwerp van discussie zijn en waarmee we uiteindelijk gaan fighterpoolen.....
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 30/11/2011 | 15:52 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/11/2011 | 15:47 uur
Entscheid gefallen (Voor 22 Saab Gripen B/C tbv Zwitserse luchtmacht)
http://www.blick.ch/news/politik/bundesrat-will-offenbar-den-billig-jet-kaufen-188443
Later in de middag volgd (volgens deze krant) de officiële bekendmaking.
Ongetwijfeld gaat Den Haag dit niet volgen; in plaats van een toereikend gevechtsvliegtuig met fixed prijs en de laagste kosten per uur van het rijtje acceptabele kandidaten hebben wij heeft de KLu en de slaafs volgende politiek liever een vliegtuig waarvan de prijs niet bekend is, dat ons o.m. door de teloorgang van de euro nog meer zal kosten, waarvan de capaciteiten ook nog eens onderwerp van discussie zijn en waarmee we uiteindelijk gaan fighterpoolen.....
:dead: :'(
De Zwiterse minister van defensie (Ueli Maurer ) heeft de keuze voor de Gripen C/D op een persconferentie bevestigt.
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/digital/saab_gripen_schweiz_1.13468133.html
Een feestje in Zweden, Saab zou immers zijn laatste (nieuwe) Gripens in 2012 van de lijn laten lopen en een enorme kater bij Dessault die twee potentiële Rafale oders (VAE: 60 en Zwitserland: 22) aan haar neus voorbij ziet gaan (al is de VAE order, bij mijn beste weten nog niet volledig afgeschoten en mag EADS met haar EF een attractief voorstel ter vergelijking uitbrengen)
Mooi nieuws. Ben benieuwd wat Zwitserland gaat doen als die F18's op zijn. Vraag me ook af of dit niet op andere competities effect zal hebben.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 30/11/2011 | 17:09 uur
Mooi nieuws. Ben benieuwd wat Zwitserland gaat doen als die F18's op zijn. Vraag me ook af of dit niet op andere competities effect zal hebben.
Het is de bedoelling on de F18's op termijn te vervangen door de huidige keuze zodat er een luchtmacht ontstaat met één type echter door de keuze voor de Gripen C/D wordt dt natuurlijk wel lastig, dat wordt het de NG of toch iets anders.
Het effect op andere competities schat ik als minimaal, het zou anders geweest zijn als Zwitserland de launching customer van de NG zou zijn geweest.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/11/2011 | 17:35 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 30/11/2011 | 17:09 uur
Mooi nieuws. Ben benieuwd wat Zwitserland gaat doen als die F18's op zijn. Vraag me ook af of dit niet op andere competities effect zal hebben.
Het is de bedoelling on de F18's op termijn te vervangen door de huidige keuze zodat er een luchtmacht ontstaat met één type echter door de keuze voor de Gripen C/D wordt dt natuurlijk wel lastig, dat wordt het de NG of toch iets anders.
Het effect op andere competities schat ik als minimaal, het zou anders geweest zijn als Zwitserland de launching customer van de NG zou zijn geweest.
Zwitserland kan er natuurlijk ook voor kiezen om te standardiseren op onderdelen en wapens. Nu de Gripen C/D en de F/A-18 Hornet. Beide met GE 404 (Gripen de RM-12 motor) En dan straks een ombouw naar de Gripen NG (wanneer ook Zweden dat gaat doen...) en dan de Hornet vervangen door de Super Hornet met allebei de GE-414.....
Lijkt me ook niet verkeerd.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/11/2011 | 17:35 uur
Het effect op andere competities schat ik als minimaal, het zou anders geweest zijn als Zwitserland de launching customer van de NG zou zijn geweest.
Al bij al is dit in mijn ogen toch goed nieuws. Natuurlijk voor SAAB, maar het toont ook aan dat die behoefte voor een tweemotorig toestel
dan toch niet bij iedereen bestaat.
Voor landen als Belgie, Nederland, Denemarken en Noorwegen (F-16 gebruikers) vind ik de Gripen (NG) een keuze die goed genoeg is voor wat deze landen er uiteindelijk mee aanvangen.
En sneu voor Dassault met haar Rafale, die ik overigens als tweede keuze heb (behalve indien er genoeg centen zouden zijn, dan stond deze bovenaan mijn lijstje)
Citaat van: Chrisis op 30/11/2011 | 17:52 uur
Zwitserland kan er natuurlijk ook voor kiezen om te standardiseren op onderdelen en wapens. Nu de Gripen C/D en de F/A-18 Hornet. Beide met GE 404 (Gripen de RM-12 motor) En dan straks een ombouw naar de Gripen NG (wanneer ook Zweden dat gaat doen...) en dan de Hornet vervangen door de Super Hornet met allebei de GE-414.....
Lijkt me ook niet verkeerd.
Zweden zal (zoals het er nu uit ziet) niet gaan kiezen voor de NG maar hun eigen bestaande Gripen plaformen moderniseren naar een E/F versie met hierin een veelheid aan NG toepassingen zodat de Gripen (in Zweden) tot 2035-2040 mee kan.
Na deze periode is de verwachting dat er een nieuw bemand/onbemand Europees initiatief is om de huidige Europese systemen (Gripen, Rafale en Eurofighter) te vervangen.
Een bestaand platform ombouwen volgens NG specificatie vergt een hele kostbare en structurele operatie.
Gripen Beats Rafale, Typhoon for Swiss
Nov 30, 2011
By Robert Wall wall@aviationweek.com
LONDON
Switzerland has opted to buy 22 Saab Gripen JAS-39E/Fs in its long-running F-5 Tiger replacement program, says Swiss defense minister Ueli Maurer.
Gripen beat out the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon -- Boeing withdrew the F/A-18E/F early from the program.
The arrangement is a big setback for Dassault, which was hoping to finally secure its first export deal for Rafale. Eurofighter also was hoping to convince Switzerland to join the family, since Italy, Austria and Germany already fly the aircraft. Switzerland also examined an F-5 extension, but that was deemed too expensive.
All the three main contenders met the requirements put forward by the services. But the Gripen had several advantages, Maurer says, including price, which leaves money over for other military needs.
The Gripen had both the lowest acquisition costs and lower 30 year life cycle cost, by far, says Maurer. The procurement program is likely to cost less than 3 billion Swiss francs.
Moreover, Switzerland liked the potential for industrial cooperation on offer from Saab.
Maurer acknowledges the Swedish fighter may not be the highest end technical option on offer, but he says it is a good fit for Switzerland and technically meets the country's needs.
Switzerland and Sweden will now refine the program in the coming months. That includes how pilot training may be set up, including potential pilot training in Sweden. Also still under review is whether final assembly of the aircraft will take place in Switzerland.
All three bidders provided good offset packages that were essentially equivalent – 100% of the value of the deal has to be offset. The industrial participation package was also attractive across the board, the Swiss say.
The exact delivery schedule is still being negotiated, with the first likely to arrive in 2015 and all aircraft to be handed over during a two- to three-year period.
Maurer says no decision has been made on whether the Gripen would also serve as the eventual replacement of Switzerland's existing fleet of older F/A-18s.
The Swiss government also looked at a smaller procurement than 22 aircraft, but a decision was taken to field at least two squadrons, requiring 22 aircraft – the program, at one point, was sized to equip three squadrons, or 33 aircraft, but that plan was curtailed to save money.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/11/30/awx_11_30_2011_p0-400145.xml&headline=Gripen%20Beats%20Rafale,%20Typhoon%20for%20Swiss
Citaat van: dudge op 30/11/2011 | 20:57 uur
(Okee, lees inderdaad dat belang van BAe vanaf 35% wordt afgebouwd naar mogelijk 0%.
Maar toch, Het is nu al geen volledig eigen ontwerp, sowieso is de kans groot dat het een speler van belang blijft in die markt.
Saab produceerd natuurlijk veel meer dan gevechtsvliegtuigen, noem het een business unit die de Gripen produceerd. Ik vermoed dat deze club binnen Saab het niet gaat redden, in dit kader zet de vandaag geplaatste Zwitserse order voor 22 Gripens nauwelijks zoden aan de dijk, het houdt hooguit de produktielijn iets langer open.
Dit perspectief veranderd natuurlijk dramatisch als Brazilië zou kiezen voor de NG met in het gevolg van deze order nog enkele honderden NG's voor (kleinere) luchtmachten die een goed en relatief goedkoop alternatief willen t.o.v. de (veel) duurdere huidige concurrenten.
Het eventueel annuleren van een JSF variant zou tevens een reddingsboei kunnen zijn als Saab met een mariene variant op de proppen komt die ze weten te verkopen aan landen met carriers of inspiratie hiervoor.
Europa heeft momenteel 3 fabrikanten van hoogwaardige fighters, 3 concurrenten die elkaar kapot concurreren terwijl er plaats is voor één of twee producenten. (ze zitten vaak braaf samen in de zelfde competitie)
Tel bij dit alles de wens van veel (opkomende) machten om zelf hun eigen gevechtsvliegtuig in de (nabije) toekomst te ontwikkelen, te bouwen en dit reeds (deels) in gang hebben gezet (India, Brazilië,Korea, Japan, Turkije en je zal zien dat de wereld teveel producenten gaat tellen die willen produceren voor eigen gebruik en voor de export (voor het gemak heb ik in deze de Russen, Chinezen en Pakistanie niet mee getelt)
Vermoedelijk is de aanstaande levering van gevechtsvliegtuigen aan Japan, Korea, Brazilë en India meteen de laatste levering van westerse gevechtsvliegtuigen, daarna doen deze landen het zelf met behulp van de kennis die ze nu gaan opdoen.
Europa zou er wijs aan doen om zich te beperken tot het ontwikkelen van één of maximaal twee types die na 2035-50 een kans van slagen hebben op de Europese- en export markt, bijvoorkeur in een high-end low end mix aangevuld met een beperkt aantal modellen U(C)AV's van hoge kwaliteit.
Als ik dit bekijk in mondiale afzet voor de toekomstige generatie Europese gevechtsvliegtuigen dan zijn daar wellicht mogelijkheden in Afrikaanse landen, het midden Oosten en Europa zelf en misschien aan een kleinere luchtmacht in Azië en Zuid Amerika.
Waarbij alle producent zich op deze landen zullen werpen als een roedel hongerige wolven, de Amerikanen en de Aziaten voorop.
Vandaar mij verhaal over minimaal één producent te veel in Europa en wie heeft er dan (op dit moment) de meeste kans om af te vallen?
In mijn optiek is dat Saab, het zou ook Dessault kunnen zijn, want zijn Rafale productie (1 per maand voor Frankrijk) stopt in 2017 of 2018 als er geen export orders worden geschreven, dus als India kiest voor de Eurofighter dan hebben de Fransozen een probleem.
Extra info over de Zwiserse beslissing en de eerste reacties van Dessault en EADS
Nov 30, 2011 - 19:30
Swiss Air Force to get Swedish jets
Switzerland has chosen the Gripen fighter jet manufactured by Sweden's Saab group to replace the Air Force's fleet of US-made F5 Tigers.
The government said on Wednesday that it had made its choice on the recommendation of Defence Minister Ueli Maurer.
Parliament has to approve the choice before the order can be placed.
The Gripen was in competition with the Rafale, made by the French Dassault company and the Eurofighter of the EADS group – a European consortium headquartered in Paris and Munich.
"In opting for the Saab Gripen, the government chose a fighter jet that meets military requirements while also going for a solution that is financially acceptable for the defence ministry and for the armed forces, in both the medium and long term," a ministry statementexplained.
Maurer told a media conference that the Gripen was by far the cheapest option of the three aircraft in contention.
He put the total cost of the fleet of 22 aircraft at about SFr3.1 billion ($3.4 billion).
While not questioning the capabilities of the other two aircraft, Maurer pointed out that the extra cost would have left less room for manoeuvre in the overall defence budget, which has also to cover the operation of an army of 100,000 and the upgrade of equipment.
"The best army in the world does not consist of the world's best aircraft plus halberds," he said.
The government had wanted to defer the purchase of the fighters while looking for a method to finance it, but had come under pressure from parliament to take a decision.
Properties unclear
The Gripen had not been chosen because it was the "latest and most up to date fighter", Maurer said, but rather because it was the one "most suitable" for Switzerland.
He added that it had come out better in some areas than in others in the evaluation, but he refused to be drawn on details, saying that the government was bound by an agreement with the three companies not to publish the results of the assessment.
As yet the Gripen model that the Swiss will buy exists only on paper. It is to be developed on the basis of an already existing jet, and it is possible that final assembly will take place in Switzerland.
Muted enthusiasm
There has been a mixed reaction to the decision in Switzerland.
Those who had been calling for a speedy purchase were muted in their enthusiasm for the choice, but welcome the fact that a decision had been made.
Position papers by the Swiss Officers' Society and the right-wing People's Party described it as "an important step towards the procurement of a new fighter jet and the implementation of parliament's most recent decisions on the army".
The two groups do not go into details about the qualities of the Gripen, although the officers say they presume the jet has "the qualities needed by a modern air force".
But both warn that the purchase of the aircraft must not be at the expense of other parts of the army, stressing that shortcomings in equipment need to be made good.
The centre-right Christian Democratic Party, which has been split over the need for the new fighters, told the Swiss News Agency that as far as it was concerned the decisive issue was the financing of the purchase.
Gleam of hope
Opponents of any purchase of fighter jets want the decision to be put before Swiss voters. If necessary, the pacifist group Group for Switzerland without an Army (GSoA) and the Greens say they will launch an initiative calling for a moratorium on the purchase.
They had previously collected the requisite 100,000 signatures needed to call a vote on the issue, but had withdrawn it when the government announced that it would postpone buying the jets.
But the opponents see a gleam of hope in Wednesday's decision.
A Green Party statement claimed that it is "an open secret" that the Gripen was bottom of the list for most members of the Air Force.
"So it is conceivable that the government, which does not want to buy any fighters at the moment, chose the Gripen because it is the one with least support in parliament," the party said.
Winners and losers
The winning manufacturer, Saab, said on its website that it was "both proud and delighted" at having been chosen.
"The Swiss type-selection confirms that Saab is a market-leader in the defence and security industry and that Gripen is a world-class fighter system that provides the best value for money", it quoted Saab president and CEO Håkan Buskhe as saying.
It added that the programme would create a long-term partnership between the two countries "aimed at creating sustainable high tech jobs, transferring technology and generating export business".
Saab shares ended the day 10.96 per cent up.
On the other side, a spokesman for the EADS consortium told the AFP news agency that they were "naturally disappointed, but respected Switzerland's choice".
He added that the company was sure the Eurofighter that they had proposed to Switzerland was the "world's most modern fighter aircraft"
The other loser, the Rafale International consortium, of which Dassault is a member, issued a statement in which it expressed surprise that the Swiss government had "knowingly decided not to place Switzerland in the top European rank as far as the performance of its new fighter aircraft is concerned".
The properties of the Rafale are such that Switzerland would have needed fewer of them to meet the same operational needs, which would have cost the same price or less, the statement said.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/internal_affairs/Swiss_Air_Force_to_get_Swedish_jets.html?cid=31673198
Up in arms: Italians protest 'economic suicide' mission
Italy is heading deeper into the crisis quagmire, with its debt already nearing the 2-trillion-euro mark. But while average Italians are ready to save, the government has another plan on the table, which critics consider "economic suicide".
The government's plan is called The Joint Strike Fighter program or JSF – a defense project based on international effort, with the US, UK and Italy just some of the participants.
Still in its developmental stage, the project the final assembly line is supposed to be based in Italy. The town of Novara is 8 km from the military base where the final stage of the F35 project is supposed to take place.
"If NATO and the US decide that equipment must be built, must be bought, so we must do it and that is why Italy is involved in such a costly venture," defense reporter Luca Galassi says.
But not everything is going according to plan.
Despite the government trying to win the people over with promises of job creation, they remain unconvinced and want the project, which they label economic suicide, to be scrapped.
The people in Novara have taken to the streets to oppose what they say is a waste of their and Italian taxpayers' money.
On November 12, more than 2000 people once again took to the streets around Novara to show their disagreement with the decision to build war weapons, and to buy about 100 of them.
The motives of the opposition are both pacifist and economic ones, with the latter becoming more and more important.
"It is a very expensive project and now that we are in crisis, Italy is cutting pensions, schools, education public health and so on," Laura Disarmo from the National Disarmament Movement.
People are saying spending so much money that this F35 project when the country is struggling to pull it out of crisis is "absolutely ridiculous".
Italy's decision to purchase 131 of these F35 planes, which combine stealth with fighter speed and agility, and are developed by an American company Lockheed Martin, will set it back some 13 billion euro.
With most of Europe mired in the eurozone crisis, and Italy itself now over 2 trillion euro in debt, Italian taxpayers are fed up at military spending they feel they do not want and do not feel they can afford.
http://rt.com/news/italy-crisis-military-protests-627/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/12/2011 | 09:30 uur
Italy's decision to purchase 131 of these F35 planes, which combine stealth with fighter speed and agility, and are developed by an American company Lockheed Martin, will set it back some 13 billion euro.
hahahaha ;D hihihih :crazy: lacheuuuu
Fighterspeed : F-35 is langzamer dan een F-16
Agility : (vertaling) beweeglijkheid, tja. een F-35 is niet wendbaar in vergelijking met een F-16
F-35 = Flying Turtle
€ 13.000.000.000,00 / 131 toestellen = € 99.236.641,00 per toestel, alleen aankoop ??
hierzullen vast nog extra kosten bijkomen
Financieel kunnen ze de Gripen nog niet eens veroorloven.
JSF's Build And Test Was 'Miscalculation,' Adm. Venlet Says; Production Must Slow
By Richard Whittle
Published: December 1, 2011
WASHINGTON: Fatigue testing and analysis are turning up so many potential cracks and "hot spots" in the Joint Strike Fighter's airframe that the production rate of the F-35 should be slowed further over the next few years, the program's head declared in an interview.
"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."
Venlet also took aim at a fundamental assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency. The JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency -- building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing -- that assumed less change than is proving necessary.
"Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation," Venlet said. "You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us." But he added: "I have the duty to navigate this program through concurrency. I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticize and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it. My duty is to help us navigate through it."
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor on the Pentagon's biggest program, has been pushing hard to increase the production rate, arguing its production line is ready and it has reduced problems on the line to speed things up. Speeding up production, of course, would boost economies of scale and help lower the politically sensitive price per plane.
But slowing production would help reduce the cost of replacing parts in jets that are being built before testing is complete, Venlet said. Although fatigue testing has barely begun -- along with "refined analysis" -- it's already turned up enough parts that need to be redesigned and replaced in jets already built that the changes may add $3 million to $5 million to each plane's cost.
The price of the F-35, being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in three variants, has averaged roughly $111 million under the most recent Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 4 contract.
The required changes to the aircraft aren't a matter of safety or of the F-35's ability to perform its missions, Venlet said. They're necessary, though, to make sure the plane's structural parts last the 8,000 hours of service life required. Nor are the weaknesses surprising in the world of fighter jets, he added. The discoveries are "not a quote 'problem with the airplane,'" Venlet said. "It's a fighter made out of metal and composites. You always find some hot spots and cracks and you have to go make fixes. That's normal. This airplane was maybe thought to be a little bit better, wouldn't have so much discovery. Well, no. It's more like standard fighters."
Venlet declined to say how much he thinks production should be slowed. Earlier plans called for the Pentagon to order 42 F-35s in fiscal 2011, but that was cut to 35 and more recently it was dropped to 30. Previous plans, which Venlet's comments and the unprecedented pressure to cut the defense budget make clear will change, had been to ramp up orders to 32 in fiscal 2012, 42 in fiscal 2013, 62 in fiscal 2014, 81 in fiscal 2015 and 108 in fiscal 2016 before jumping to more than 200 a year after fundamental fatigue and flight testing is done.
Officially the "Lightning II," the F-35 is a stealthy attack jet Lockheed is building with major subcontractors Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and 11 allied nations. There is a conventional take off and landing (CTOL) version, an aircraft carrier-suitable (CV) model and a short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) jump jet that hovers and lands much like a helicopter. The U.S. services alone are scheduled to buy 2,443 to replace a variety of older fighters, making the $379 billion program the Pentagon's largest.
Venlet's comments address a key issue in negotiations between the government and Lockheed for the next contract, LRIP 5. The government paid for design changes and retrofits through the first four lots, but Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall issued a memo in August requiring Lockheed to bear a "reasonable" share of such costs in LRIP 5. Lockheed complained last month that the government was refusing to reimburse it for parts the company was buying in advance for LRIP 5 aircraft as the price and terms of that next production contract are negotiated.
"We negotiated the LRIP 4 contract with a certain amount of resources considered to pay for concurrent changes," Venlet said. "We were probably off on the low side by a factor of four. Maybe five. And we've discovered that in this calendar year, '11, and it's basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden." On top of that, he added, the cost of concurrency changes figures to grow as more testing is done -- one reason it's important to slow production rather than testing.
"Slowing down the test program would be probably the most damaging thing anybody could do to the program," Venlet said. "The test program must proceed as fast as possible."
Flight testing of the F-35, though going extremely well lately, is only 18 percent complete, Venlet said. As of Nov. 29, 1,364 test flights had been flown -- 896 of them in the past 10 months, despite two stoppages of a couple of weeks each to fix problems found by flying. Under a new program baseline created after the JSF project breached cost limits under the Nunn-McCurdy law, about 7,700 hours of flight tests are planned. "That's a lot," Venlet said, adding that number will grow if more problems are found.
Fatigue testing has barely begun, Venlet said. The CTOL variant's fatigue testing is about 20 percent complete; the CV variant has not started yet. For the STOVL variant, fatigue testing was halted at 6 percent last year and has not resumed after a crack in a large bulkhead in the wing was found, requiring a major redesign of that part.
That bulkhead crack was one of five discoveries in the F-35B that required engineering changes, one reason former Defense Secretary Robert Gates placed it on "probation" last January and said the Marine's plane should be canceled if the problems weren't solved within two years. Venlet repeated earlier statements that he was sure the changes needed to take care of the problems are now in place, though he wants to await final testing of them this winter before saying it's time for the jump jet to come off of probation.
After discovering the bulkhead crack in the B variant last year, Venlet explained, "We said, 'Well, where else do we need to look?' The fallout of that additional analysis has revealed additional spots that (may fail in) less than 8,000 hours of service life. We call them 'analyzed low-life hot spots.'" In other words, he said, engineering analysis indicates those spots "are going to crack" well before the parts in question have flown 8,000 hours.
"The question for me is not: 'F-35 or not?'" Venlet said. "The question is, how many and how fast? I'm not questioning the ultimate inventory numbers, I'm questioning the pace that we ramp up production for us and the partners, and can we afford it?"
http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/01/jsf-build-and-test-was-miscalculation-production-must-slow-v/
Wat gaat Zwitserkand nu eigenlijk kopen? De E/F versie.... is de E/F de NG of een opwaardering van de B/C??
Sweden should develop 'super jets': MPs
Published: 1 Dec 11 15:58 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
A Defense committee majority has reached an agreement that Sweden should develop up to ten of the E/F model Jas if "Brazil or any other country" places an order for the fighter jet.
The proposition will be officially agreed by the Riksdag in two weeks time.
This would mean that the government in 2012 could be deciding on a development of up to ten aircraft, as long as the Swiss deal goes though.
However, the Greens want Sweden to upgrade the existing Gripen fighter jet and argue that the new E/F model would be too expensive.
The party spokesperson on defense, Peter Rådberg, said that it is very likely that it is a Super-Jas model that Switzerland wants, which would influence Sweden's decision on future air defense.
He added that Switzerland is paying 22 billion kronor for the deal ($3.29 billion), which would indicate a billion kronor per fighter – a price tag significantly higher than for the existing planes.
"This is a lot more expensive. Previous calculations have estimated about half a billion per aircraft, so there's a lot that indicate it is a E/F model that they are asking for, but we will see. We don't have all the information at the moment," he said to TT.
"Developing ten planes will cost tax payers enormous amounts of money."
However, the Social Democrats are positive to the development of the ten super fighters, if the Swiss deal goes through.
"Getting this order at this point is good for Sweden. It is important both for the armed forces and for Sweden as a nation. It shows that Jas Gripen is a fighter and a defense system that has earned international respect," said Social Democrat Peter Hultqvist, head of the Riksdag Committee on Defense, to TT.
Saab had prepared quotes of both a C/D and E/F version of the Jas Gripen fighter jet for Switzerland. At the Swiss press conference on Wednesday it was the E/F version that was discussed, according to TT.
On Thursday there were speculations in Swedish media as to what would happen if Switzerland later were to change its mind.
"All I can say is that the Swiss government yesterday chose Gripen after reviewing a number of other alternative possibilities for Switzerland," defense minister Sten Tolgfors said to TT on Thursday.
"It is my firm belief that they are doing so because they are convinced that this is the best choice for Switzerland and that this choice will be anchored in the political system, so I choose not to speculate about that," he said.
http://www.thelocal.se/37688/20111201/#
Sweden Gives Gripen NG Another Boost
The Swedish government always said it would support any export customer for the Gripen NG by accelerating its own procurement plans for the latest iteration of the single-engine fighter. Current plans call for procurement of the Gripen NG for Sweden starting around 2017/18.
A day after Switzerland committed to buying the aircraft, with a planned fielding in 2015, Stockholm is trying to make good on its commitment. A Swedish parliamentary committee has endorsed the idea of buying ten JAS-39E/Fs for the Swedish air force early. That effort will likely get full government endorsement next year.
The exact configuration of the Gripen NG for Switzerland remains to be sorted out. That situation is actually raising some questions.
Switzerland had indicated it would buy its Tiger replacement fighter off-the-shelf, with critics of the decision to go for Gripen saying the NG is not that. Dassault argues that "the 'Swiss-tailored' Gripen only exists on paper. Its technical development and production risk significantly increasing the financial efforts required of the Swiss Authorities to accomplish the country's fighter aircraft program."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a8c8348f9-48ba-45cd-9051-2d7fdab47de1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Fanstastisch nieuws als het dan toch de Gripen NG blijkt te zijn, zeker als de Zweden zich zelf ook, met eerst 10, aan dit toestel zal committeren.
Dit geeft onze Klu wel de argumenten om ook voor deze Viking te kiezen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/12/2011 | 09:48 uur
Fanstastisch nieuws als het dan toch de Gripen NG blijkt te zijn, zeker als de Zweden zich zelf ook, met eerst 10, aan dit toestel committeren.
Dit geeft onze Klu wel de argumenten om ook voor deze Viking te kiezen.
Niet alleen de KLu... ik denk dat er nog wel andere Europese NATO-leden zouden durven kijken in die richting.
(Indien men in België de F-16s wil vervangen kunnen ze daar beter ook in actie schieten.
Wat mij enkele jaren geleden wat verontruste was dat het zich niet aansloot zoals bv NL bij de rij JSF-geinteresseerden.
Ik zou nog steeds niet verbaasd zijn indien de politici daar zouden beslissen geen F-16 vervanger aan te kopen, en "zich te specialiseren" op luchttransport, met slechts 7 A400Ms ter vervanging van 11-12 C130s.
Wel, mss een 8ste A400M indien je die van Luxemburg erbij zou rekenen, want deze zou ook gestationeerd worden op Melsbroek/Zaventem/Brussel Nationaal)
Een bestelling door meerdere landen zou
- de aankoopkosten omlaag moeten halen wat in het belang is van de participerende landen.
- zelfs voor de Zweden interessant moeten zijn want ieder extra verkocht vliegtuig brengt geld in't laadje én verhoogt zeker ook kansen om hun product ook buiten Europa aan de man te brengen.
- voor standaardisering goed moeten zijn. Dat was voordien al het voordeel met de F-16 en haar Europese afnemers.
AMSTERDAM - Het Pentagon dringt aan op het uitstellen van de productie van de JSF door technische mankementen.
Informatie volgt.
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2683640/pentagon-wil-uitstel-productie-jsf.html
Fatigue testing and analysis are turning up so many potential cracks and "hot spots" in the Joint Strike Fighter's airframe that the production rate of the F-35 should be slowed further over the next few years, the program's head declared in an interview.
"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."
Venlet also took aim at a fundamental assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency. The JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency -- building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing -- that assumed less change than is proving necessary.
"Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation," Venlet said. "You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us." But he added: "I have the duty to navigate this program through concurrency. I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticize and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it. My duty is to help us navigate through it."
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor on the Pentagon's biggest program, has been pushing hard to increase the production rate, arguing its production line is ready and it has reduced problems on the line to speed things up. Speeding up production, of course, would boost economies of scale and help lower the politically sensitive price per plane.
But slowing production would help reduce the cost of replacing parts in jets that are being built before testing is complete, Venlet said. Although fatigue testing has barely begun -- along with "refined analysis" -- it's already turned up enough parts that need to be redesigned and replaced in jets already built that the changes may add $3 million to $5 million to each plane's cost.
The price of the F-35, being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in three variants, has averaged roughly $111 million under the most recent Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 4 contract.
The required changes to the aircraft aren't a matter of safety or of the F-35's ability to perform its missions, Venlet said. They're necessary, though, to make sure the plane's structural parts last the 8,000 hours of service life required. Nor are the weaknesses surprising in the world of fighter jets, he added. The discoveries are "not a quote 'problem with the airplane,'" Venlet said. "It's a fighter made out of metal and composites. You always find some hot spots and cracks and you have to go make fixes. That's normal. This airplane was maybe thought to be a little bit better, wouldn't have so much discovery. Well, no. It's more like standard fighters."
Venlet declined to say how much he thinks production should be slowed. Earlier plans called for the Pentagon to order 42 F-35s in fiscal 2011, but that was cut to 35 and more recently it was dropped to 30. Previous plans, which Venlet's comments and the unprecedented pressure to cut the defense budget make clear will change, had been to ramp up orders to 32 in fiscal 2012, 42 in fiscal 2013, 62 in fiscal 2014, 81 in fiscal 2015 and 108 in fiscal 2016 before jumping to more than 200 a year after fundamental fatigue and flight testing is done.
Officially the "Lightning II," the F-35 is a stealthy attack jet Lockheed is building with major subcontractors Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and 11 allied nations. There is a conventional take off and landing (CTOL) version, an aircraft carrier-suitable (CV) model and a short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) jump jet that hovers and lands much like a helicopter. The U.S. services alone are scheduled to buy 2,443 to replace a variety of older fighters, making the $379 billion program the Pentagon's largest.
Venlet's comments address a key issue in negotiations between the government and Lockheed for the next contract, LRIP 5. The government paid for design changes and retrofits through the first four lots, but Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall issued a memo in August requiring Lockheed to bear a "reasonable" share of such costs in LRIP 5. Lockheed complained last month that the government was refusing to reimburse it for parts the company was buying in advance for LRIP 5 aircraft as the price and terms of that next production contract are negotiated.
"We negotiated the LRIP 4 contract with a certain amount of resources considered to pay for concurrent changes," Venlet said. "We were probably off on the low side by a factor of four. Maybe five. And we've discovered that in this calendar year, '11, and it's basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden." On top of that, he added, the cost of concurrency changes figures to grow as more testing is done -- one reason it's important to slow production rather than testing.
"Slowing down the test program would be probably the most damaging thing anybody could do to the program," Venlet said. "The test program must proceed as fast as possible."
Flight testing of the F-35, though going extremely well lately, is only 18 percent complete, Venlet said. As of Nov. 29, 1,364 test flights had been flown -- 896 of them in the past 10 months, despite two stoppages of a couple of weeks each to fix problems found by flying. Under a new program baseline created after the JSF project breached cost limits under the Nunn-McCurdy law, about 7,700 hours of flight tests are planned. "That's a lot," Venlet said, adding that number will grow if more problems are found.
Fatigue testing has barely begun, Venlet said. The CTOL variant's fatigue testing is about 20 percent complete; the CV variant has not started yet. For the STOVL variant, fatigue testing was halted at 6 percent last year and has not resumed after a crack in a large bulkhead in the wing was found, requiring a major redesign of that part.
That bulkhead crack was one of five discoveries in the F-35B that required engineering changes, one reason former Defense Secretary Robert Gates placed it on "probation" last January and said the Marine's plane should be canceled if the problems weren't solved within two years. Venlet repeated earlier statements that he was sure the changes needed to take care of the problems are now in place, though he wants to await final testing of them this winter before saying it's time for the jump jet to come off of probation.
After discovering the bulkhead crack in the B variant last year, Venlet explained, "We said, 'Well, where else do we need to look?' The fallout of that additional analysis has revealed additional spots that (may fail in) less than 8,000 hours of service life. We call them 'analyzed low-life hot spots.'" In other words, he said, engineering analysis indicates those spots "are going to crack" well before the parts in question have flown 8,000 hours.
"The question for me is not: 'F-35 or not?'" Venlet said. "The question is, how many and how fast? I'm not questioning the ultimate inventory numbers, I'm questioning the pace that we ramp up production for us and the partners, and can we afford it?"
In this article
Topics
http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/01/jsf-build-and-test-was-miscalculation-production-must-slow-v
GE, Rolls Royce drop effort to build F35 engines
Fri Dec 2, 2011 11:41am EST
(Reuters) - General Electric Co and Rolls Royce are dropping their effort to build an alternate engine for Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 joint strike fighter, giving up on what they said could be a $100 billion market.
The decision to end their funding of the project beyond 2011, which the companies announced on Friday, is a boost for United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, which builds the engine used in F-35's early production models.
The Defense Department earlier this year canceled funding for the second engine. That led GE and Rolls Royce to say that they would fund it themselves for the rest of this year and fiscal 2012.
"The decision, reached jointly by GE and Rolls-Royce leadership, recognizes the continued uncertainty in the development and production schedules for the JSF program," the companies said.
GE said the companies spent tens of millions of dollars on the project in 2011. Since 1997, the government handed out about $3 billion for alternate engine development, GE said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/02/us-usa-ge-idUSTRE7B11HW20111202
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/12/2011 | 17:52 uur
GE, Rolls Royce drop effort to build F35 engines, Fri Dec 2, 2011 11:41am EST
(Reuters) - General Electric Co and Rolls Royce are dropping their effort to build an alternate engine for Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 joint strike fighter, giving up on what they said could be a $100 billion market.
"The decision, reached jointly by GE and Rolls-Royce leadership, recognizes the continued uncertainty in the development and production schedules for the JSF program," the companies said.
Dus jullie laten een markt van volgens jullie in potentie USD 100 miljard schieten? De echte markt omvang bedraagt overigens USD 62 miljard.
De waarschijnlijke reden waarom GE & RR niet meer mee doen. Is dat waarschijnlijk de F-35B en F-35C geannuleerd worden en er maar honderden en niet duizenden F-35A's zullen worden gebouwd.
Citaat van: Poleme op 02/12/2011 | 19:29 uur
[Dus jullie laten een markt van volgens jullie in potentie USD 100 miljard schieten? De echte markt omvang bedraagt overigens USD 62 miljard.
De waarschijnlijke reden waarom GE & RR niet meer mee doen. Is dat waarschijnlijk de F-35B en F-35C geannuleerd worden en er maar honderden en niet duizenden F-35A's zullen worden gebouwd.
Ik heb de zelfde gedachte.
Citaat van: dudge op 02/12/2011 | 19:40 uur
Hoe makkelijk is het om zo'n motor in een ander toestel in te bouwen? Wordt het toestel om de motor ontworpen, of kun je het er redelijk makkelijk inschroeven?
Ik ben recent een stuk tegengekomen waarin men spreekt van de mogelijkheid om een aangepaste F136 wellicht een alternateve krachtbron zou kunnen zijn voor de Rafale. (stuk staat ook in dit topic)
French Defense Minister Gérard Longuet has said the Rafale had shown in the Libyan operations that the present M88 engine met the UAE's requirements. That assertion may well be what UAE officials had in mind, when they privately say: "Don't tell us what our requirements are."
Laird said a General Electric-Snecma co-development, would be based on General Electric's F136 engine technology, and would make sense for upgrading the Rafale.
Wellicht biedt bovenstaande voldoende vermogen om ook de Rafale meer competatief te maken (als het er ooit van komt)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8315802&c=FEA&s=CVS
Citaat van: dudge op 02/12/2011 | 20:25 uur
Want juist als de JSF markt instort, zal de alternatieve markt een groei laten zien, met de nodige 'NG' varianten van bestaande toestellen, met wellicht een nieuwe, sterkere en zuinigere motor, als dat kan dus.
Ik kan me zo voorstellen dat diverse modellen kunnen profiteren in dat voorkomende geval.
Als voorbeeld, een Rafale met een F136 (variant) is misschien moeiteloos in staat om supercruise te vliegen, sneller te accellereren of op andere hoogstes inzetbaar... als dit tot de mogelijkheden behoord dan heb je opeens een heel ander toestel.
En zo zullen meer leveranciers is het (eventuele) JSF gat duiken.
GE Quits Fight for Alternate Engine for JSF
By MARA LEE maralee@courant.com
9:12 p.m. EST, December 2, 2011
The alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which sparked a lobbying battle between two defense industry titans that raged for five years, has been shot down before. But as of Friday, it's undeniably, indisputably dead.
Its own parents, General Electric and Rolls-Royce, drove the stake through the heart. The companies announced Friday that they are abandoning the alternate engine, a victory for Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford.
The U.S. House, Senate, Pentagon and White House had been in a tug of war many times before about killing or reviving the GE engine, known as the F136.
Eglin Air Force Base Even in February, when a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Tea Party Republicans pulled $450 in development funds for the F136, there was a glimmer of life. At that time, GE said it would self-fund the alternate engine and keep lobbying for two engines for the next generation fighter jet, arguing that competition would save money in the long run.
Now, GE and Rolls-Royce say that self-funding's benefit has become murky.
The companies "saw the writing on the wall and decided it doesn't make sense," said Richard Tortoriello, a Standard & Poor's Equity Analyst. "I would take them at their word."
But, Tortoriello said, the reason that GE gave up is also the reason the news may be somewhat anti-climactic for Pratt — the number of Joint Strike Fighters will be built is a huge question mark, given budget pressures in Washington.
The Air Force, Marines and Navy are scheduled to buy 2,443 JSF planes over the next 20 years. But the date when full production will start keeps getting pushed out.
"The longer it takes to go up to higher lot quantities, the greater the cost," Tortoriello said, and that makes it likely the government will buy fewer planes. "I expect the F35 program to be a sizable program; I also expect it'll be scaled back from where it is right now."
In a doomsday scenario for the next-generation fighter, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Senators last month that the program could be canceled altogether if Congress fails to agree on deficit reductions, forcing automatic defense cuts.
In its announcement, GE said: "The decision, reached jointly by GE and Rolls-Royce leadership, recognizes the continued uncertainty in the development and production schedules for the JSF Program."
GE began working on the engine 15 years ago, and says development was 80 percent done.
In April, when the Pentagon terminated the F136, a spokesman for Pratt, whose version is called the F135, said, "The cancellation of the Joint Strike Fighter's extra engine program represents an important victory for our men and women in uniform and the American taxpayer."
Friday, the company's response was more subdued. Its statement:
"Pratt & Whitney and UTC remain focused on delivering F135 engines while lowering costs for our customers, and powering a successful flight test program. We've delivered 37 production engines and we have an F135 team at Eglin Air Force Base ready to support F-35 flight training operations."
That flight training was supposed to start this fall, but Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's top weapons tester, wrote a memo in October that flight training should be delayed by 10 months, because he believes there's a substantial risk of an accident so serious that it could kill the pilot or result in the loss of an airplane.
A Pratt spokeswoman said no decision has been made on when flight training would begin.
GE and Rolls-Royce, even as they bowed out, said they stood by their position.
"GE and Rolls-Royce are deeply grateful to our many Congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle over these many years as well as the military experts who have supported competing engines for JSF," said Dan McCormick, president of the fighter engine team. "We do not waver in our belief that competition is central to meaningful defense acquisition reform."
U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-1st District and Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, put out a joint statement saying GE made the right decision to withdraw.
"The F135 engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney is a successful engine and we look forward to seeing the completion of this project and watching the F-35 in action for years to come," they said. "We also look forward to continuing to work with General Electric, who produces the lion's share of engines for our nation's military aircraft."
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-f136-alternate-engine-dead-20111202,0,4881844.story
GE, Rolls Give Up on F136 JSF Alternate Engine
Dec 2, 2011
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/12/02/awx_12_02_2011_p0-401195.xml&headline=GE,%20Rolls%20Give%20Up%20on%20F136%20JSF%20Alternate%20Engine&next=20
Een interview (in het Duits) over de Zwitserse Gripen aanschaf.
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/taplus/standard/Bildstrecke-Der-neue-Kampfjet/story/24173891
Japan Weighs Options for Pricey Fighter Jets .
By CHESTER DAWSON
TOKYO—Japan is upgrading air defenses increasingly tested by China and Russia, and officials are wrestling with a fundamental question: Can the country still afford to pay for the most advanced technology and nurture its domestic industry?
Chester Dawson/The Wall Street Journal
Recent aerial sorties by China and Russia have forced Japanese fighters to scramble to intercept them. Pictured, an Air SelfDefense Force F2.
In a move expected as soon as this month, Japan's Defense Ministry will pick a replacement for its aging squadrons of Vietnam-era F-4 fighters from among three finalists, two American and one European. The order for a new fighter is expected to total 40 to 60 planes valued at an estimated $4 billion. It is Japan's biggest fighter contract yet and one of the world's largest military contracts this year.
The decision comes as China is overshadowing Japan on many fronts, including overtaking it last year as the world's second-largest economy. Beijing has also ratcheted up its military spending, which is rising 12.7% this year to 601.1 billion yuan ($94.3 billion). Meanwhile, Japan's defense budget—at 4.6 trillion yen ($59 billion) this year—has declined for nearly a decade, and the country now faces mounting bills for its post-earthquake and nuclear-crisis cleanup.
Of Japan's fighter-jet options, the pricey, cutting-edge choice—Lockheed Martin Corp.'s new F-35 Lightning II JSF—is seen as the favorite because it incorporates the latest, so-called fifth-generation, stealth technology, providing radar-evading capability both in front of and behind the aircraft.
But a pair of lower-cost, combat-tested fighters—Boeing Co.'s F-18 Super Hornet and the European consortium Eurofighter GmbH's Typhoon fighter—are getting serious consideration.
"Japan always wants the latest technology, so that means the F-35 has an edge, but the F-18 is a viable option in the current budgetary environment," said Toshiyuki Shikata, a professor at Teikyo University and retired lieutenant general in the Japanese Self Defense Forces.
The F-35's stealth technology is a big attraction for Japan, which has grown increasingly worried about the debut of two rival stealth prototype fighters—China's J-20 and Russia's Sukhoi T-50. Recent aerial sorties by both those countries have forced Japanese jet fighters to scramble to intercept them. Japan's Defense Ministry says there were more such incidents last year than at any other time since 1990.
When Japan last contracted a new fighter jet two decades ago, it was running annual fiscal surpluses and could easily afford to make planes at home, despite Japan's much higher production costs. Nevertheless, a compromise with the U.S., which worried about a loss of defense business and competition from an all-Japanese fighter jet, laid out that the Japanese would develop 60% of the new plane—a derivative of the U.S. F-16, which Japan now calls the F-2—and U.S. firms would be responsible for the rest. The cost for the F-2 was about 13.2 billion yen ($171.4 million), according to the Defense Ministry, well above the price of an F-16.
Two decades later, as Japan weighs its next-generation fighter options, the use of foreign technology is a given and cost looms large, as Japan's debt has soared to 200% of gross domestic product.
"The situation has changed today. It would be expensive to build it all themselves," said Jeffrey Kohler, Boeing's vice president of business development for military aircraft and a retired Air Force lieutenant general. "Japanese industry has realized that it's not all or nothing."
Even by tapping foreign expertise instead of going it alone, Japan will find the planes might not come cheap, and Tokyo wants to build much of it locally. Details on the three bids, submitted in September, haven't been disclosed, but industry officials say the F-35s cost well over $100 million each. The F-18s have been priced for as little as half that, depending on volumes ordered.
Beyond price, how much of the next fighter's production will remain local has emerged as a key question as Japanese industry is pushing to keep jobs and nurture its military avionics know-how. New production of the F-2, Japan's current mainstay fighter, ended Sept. 27. Without a ready replacement, the assembly line at Japanese contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.'s South Komaki plant in Nagoya has been idled.
Lockheed Martin has offered to localize final assembly and some other production but has resisted a wholesale transfer of manufacturing rights. On the other hand, Boeing has indicated willingness to license up to 85% of production to Japanese contractors, and BAE Systems PLC, a leading member of the Eurofighter consortium, has said it could provide close to 95% localization.
"There's a business case to be made" for capping local production, said Philip Georgariou, Lockheed Martin's vice president for strategic partnering. "We think the discussion shouldn't be about what percent, but rather how much new technology is brought to the table."
Japanese Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa has said his chief criterion is capability, but first he must wrangle with the Finance Ministry, which has sought to cap defense outlays. The Defense Ministry has prepared a request to fund an initial order of four fighters costing 13.7 billion yen each—slightly more than the average cost per plane of producing the previous generation F-2 fighter.
Most experts say the Eurofighter's Typhoon—priced somewhere between the F-18 and the F-35—is a worthy contender for Japan's air-defense needs. But it faces an uphill battle due to pressure from Washington, which, as Tokyo's top security ally, has quietly pushed the case for a U.S. jet. As a result, they say the F-35 is the top contender, followed by the F-18.
"It's the Americans' competition to lose," said James Hardy, a senior analyst for Asian Pacific region with Jane's Defense Weekly. "The fact is that the U.S. is Japan's security partner, and the Japanese Air Self Defense Force has flown U.S. planes since the 1970s."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204517204577043522664803412.html
'Combat aircraft contest not over'
Ajai Shukla / Linkoping/ Sweden December 5, 2011, 0:13 IST
There are celebrations at Linkoping, the home of the Gripen NG fighter, which is barely two hours from Stockholm in one of Sweden's ultra-friendly inter-city trains. On Tuesday, the Swiss government announced its selection of the Gripen fighter for the Swiss Air Force, turning away the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.
"If confirmed, a win in Switzerland (according to the Swiss constitution, this might even require a national referendum) will provide a much-needed boost to Saab's status as a fighter manufacturer, after its Gripen was eliminated in another high-profile contest in India," said respected aviation magazine, Flight Global.
India's has decided differently, short-listing the Typhoon and Rafale over the Gripen NG in New Delhi's ongoing selection of 126 medium, multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). But, visiting Linkoping, Business Standard sees little despondency. With India's defence ministry (MoD) uncomfortable with how it might have to double its $10.5 billion allocation for those heavy fighters, Gripen is not ruling itself out of the MMRCA competition.
"It's not over till it's over," says Eddy de la Motte, Head of Gripen Export. "We have been and are still confident that Gripen is the perfect match for the IAF as well as for the Indian defence and aviation industry."
Eddy de la Motte also points out that Gripen has provided details of its Sea Gripen fighter (which is still being developed) in response to an Indian Navy's enquiry.
Executives in Linkoping all insist that the Gripen NG — the New Generation version of the current Gripen-D fighter —would provide India with the fighter it needs for a far cheaper procurement and operating cost. They say it would be one-third the cost of the Typhoon and the Rafale, calculated on a "through-life" basis.
We tour the Linkoping facility, which was set up in 1930, when Sweden was unable to buy fighters because of the embargoes that preceded World War II. Over the next eight decades, a fierce focus on aerospace R&D — 20 per cent of revenues to back into research — has driven the development of world-beating aircraft at Linkoping. These include the Saab-21A in 1945 (the world's first aircraft with an ejection seat); the Saab 29 Tunnan (the first aircraft with swept wings); and the Viggen, which the Indian Air Force had selected in the 1970s as a ground strike aircraft. But an angry Washington, seething from India's nuclear experiment in Pokhran, vetoed the supply of its American-origin engines to India. The IAF bought the Jaguar instead.
Today, Linkoping is dedicated to the Gripen. Over 200 Gripens currently fly with five air forces — Sweden, South Africa, Thailand, Czech Republic and Hungary — and Switzerland will be the sixth. Gripen is also a leading contender (along with the Rafale) in the Brazilian Air Force's purchase of medium fighters.
But India demanded a more capable aircraft than the current Gripen-D; and Saab offered its futuristic Gripen NG fighter, of which only a single prototype exists.
Housed in a secluded hangar, the Gripen NG is discernably bigger than the Gripen-D. The earlier Gripen fighters were light, agile fighters, which could land and take off from 800-metre stretches of regular highway. A carefully inbuilt ability to be refuelled and rearmed within just 10 minutes of landing allowed a small number of Gripen-Ds to fly as many sorties as a significantly larger number of heavier-maintenance fighters. But, along with low maintenance, India wanted a heavier fighter, with more weaponry and a longer range and endurance. Enter the Gripen NG.
"The NG is essentially a Mark III Gripen fighter. The Gripen A/B, a 12-tonne light fighter, was the Mark I. This went up to 14-tonnes in the Gripen C/D, which can be considered the Mark II. Our latest development, the Gripen NG, will be a 16.5 tonne medium fighter," explains de la Motte.
That extra weight includes an additional tonne of fuel. Along with two 450-gallon fuel pods on the wings, this allows the Gripen NG to fly a staggering 4,100 kilometres. On internal fuel alone, it flies 2,500 kilometres. That exceeds the range of much bigger aircraft like the Typhoon.
Moving the undercarriage to the wings for enlarging the fuel tanks also created space for two additional hard points (on which weapons are mounted). The Gripen NG now has ten stations, extraordinary for a 16-tonne fighter. Flying into combat, it would typically carry two IRIS-T air-to-air missiles on its wingtips, which can shoot down enemy aircraft 25 kilometres away; two Meteor beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles, deadly accurate at ranges in excess of 100 kilometres; two fuel pods with 900 gallons of fuel; three GBU-12 precision-guided bombs for ground targets; and a reconnaissance pod.
To power all this weight, the Gripen-D's General Electric F-404 engine is being replaced with the advanced F-414 engine, an upgrade that is common to India's Tejas fighter. With thrust increased from 18,000 pounds to 22,000 pounds, the Gripen NG already super-cruises, or flies supersonic in economy mode.
But the NG's real strength is the cockpit, which is built to delight a fighter pilot. Using Saab's acknowledged data link capability, information is drawn from multiple sensors inside and outside the aircraft, including satellites. A terabyte-capacity computer screens out superfluous information, providing the pilot only the best input of each category. This allows him to concentrate on battle, rather than handling information.
And finally, the pilot has satellite communications, permitting him to communicate across the globe. In a sensitive situation — such as an attack that could start, or escalate a war, or even on a nuclear strike mission — the pilot might need to take permission before launching weapons. This could be done over the satellite radio.
"During the Indian trials, when the Gripen successfully took off from Leh, the pilot called Linkoping on the satellite radio to say all is well," said one of the Gripen NG pilots.
http://business-standard.com/india/news/combat-aircraft-contest-not-over/457582/
Israel fears F-35 delivery will be delayed
Published: Dec. 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM
TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 5 (UPI) -- Israeli military planners say they are increasingly worried that problems in Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will mean that delivery of 20 of the stealthy jets ordered in October 2010 for $2.75 billion will be delayed.
If the delivery timetable is pushed back to later than 2017, senior military officers say the Israeli air force could consider acquiring new Boeing F-15 Eagles or Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcons to fill the gap.
At present, the first of the 20 F-35s -- enough for one squadron -- is scheduled to arrive in Israel in 2015 with delivery completion in 2016. Pilots are to undergo training with the U.S. Air Force starting in 2014.
Until a few weeks ago, Israeli officials were confident that the first JSF squadron would be delivered on time, despite problems that have delayed the project for at least three years.
This optimism flew in the face of the technical setbacks that have plagued the development of what is billed as the world's most advanced fighter and even suggestions in Congress the high-profile project be scrapped because of massive cost overruns.
That confidence was undermined after the Pentagon's director of the F-35 program, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. David Venlet, urged slowing production because of cracks and "hot spots" that are showing up during fatigue testing and analysis.
"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and the cost," Venlet told the Web publication AOL Defense.
"Most of them are little ones. But when you bundle them, all up and package them, and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs," he said.
"I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here, until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right."
The Israeli Defense Ministry has budgeted the purchase of more F-35s for a second squadron under the military's new multiyear plan that begins in early 2012.
Ultimately, the air force wants three F-35 squadrons to form the spearhead of its strike force -- some 75 aircraft. The Pentagon has already approved the sale to Israel of 55 of the single-engine jets at dates yet unspecified.
The Israelis say they need the F-35 to maintain their long-held air superiority in the Middle East, and in a wider context, the Jewish state's technological edge over its regional adversaries, Iran in particular.
Israel's main problem is that senior U.S. air force officers said in testimony before Congress in November that the F-35's development problems mean it's not likely to become operational with U.S. forces until 2018 -- two years later than planned.
Aviation Week reported recently that the U.S. Air Force plans to upgrade more than 300 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters and probably some Boeing F-15s as well to fill the operational gap caused by the F-35 delays.
Despite the Israeli Defense Ministry's public position that procurement plans won't be affected by the F-35 delays, senior officers say additional delays could lead to the acquisition of new-model F-15s and F-16s to maintain Israel's qualitative edge in the air until the JSFs do actually arrive.
Boeing unveiled the F-15SE Silent Eagle in March 2010. It reportedly has a stealth capability that can evade radars carried by enemy aircraft but not ground-based radar systems.
The Israeli air force currently operates 25 customized F-15I -- for Israel -- Ra'am aircraft, and 101 F-16I Sufa jets that form its strategic spearhead and would be the squadrons deployed in any strike against Iran.
The F-15I has the longest range in the Israeli air force.
The Israelis paid close attention when Boeing launched the F-15SE in July 2010 at its St. Louis headquarters.
Another problem for the Israelis is the mounting cost of the F-35.
When Israel bought into the JSF program in 2002, the price tag was $69 million per aircraft. But that's constantly rising and could go as high as $150 million because of cost overruns.
The F-15SE reportedly costs around $100 million per aircraft.
© 2011 United Press International, Inc.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/12/05/Israel-fears-F-35-delivery-will-be-delayed/UPI-37051323113149/#ixzz1fhCLz9z5
McCain calls F35 Join Strike Fighter program a 'tragedy'
By Josiah Ryan - 12/05/11 03:41 PM ET
Ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Join McCain (R-Ariz.) on Monday called the troubled F35 Join Strike Fighter jet program a "scandal" and " tragedy" and demanded greater accountability for the weapon system's maker, Lockheed Martin.
"The Joint Strike Fighter program has been both a scandal and a tragedy," said McCain from the Senate floor Monday. "[W]e are saddled with a program has little to show for itself after 10 years and $56 billion in taxpayer investment that has produced less than 20 test and operational aircraft."
In his speech McCain sketched the ten year history of the embattled program, describing mechanical problems and budget overruns that have plagued development. The senior senator from Arizona also argued that the aircraft's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin has charged the U.S. taxpayer vast sums for fixing problems that were in fact its own fault or that should have been included in original budget estimates.
"Lockheed Martin must be held increasingly accountable for cost overruns that come as a result of wringing out necessary changes in the design and manufacturing process for this incredibly expensive aircraft," said McCain.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/197275--mccain-calls-f35-join-strike-fighter-program-a-tragedy
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 05/12/2011 | 21:54 uur
Israel fears F-35 delivery will be delayed
The Israelis paid close attention when Boeing launched the F-15SE in July 2010 at its St. Louis headquarters.
Another problem for the Israelis is the mounting cost of the F-35.
When Israel bought into the JSF program in 2002, the price tag was $69 million per aircraft. But that's constantly rising and could go as high as $150 million because of cost overruns.
The F-15SE reportedly costs around $100 million per aircraft.
Een teken aan de wand, als je het mij vraagt ?
Israel gaat wel F-15SE aanschaffen en misschien wel ten koste van de F-35
zoveel voordelen ; bekend toestel, snel leverbaar, goedkoper, systemen gelijk aan die van JSF zijn geintergreerd, interne weapons-bay's, conformal fuel tanks (hierdoor meer range), wendbaarder, sneller, stealth (natuurlijk wel in mindermate dan JSF), Link-16 data-link (heeft de JSF in eerste-instantie niet), .....
Citaat van: Harald op 05/12/2011 | 22:26 uur
[Een teken aan de wand, als je het mij vraagt ?
Israel gaat wel F-15SE aanschaffen en misschien wel ten koste van de F-35
zoveel voordelen ; bekend toestel, snel leverbaar, goedkoper, systemen gelijk aan die van JSF zijn geintergreerd, interne weapons-bay's, conformal fuel tanks (hierdoor meer range), wendbaarder, sneller, stealth (natuurlijk wel in mindermate dan JSF), Link-16 data-link (heeft de JSF in eerste-instantie niet), .....
Ik ken nog wel een attractief internationaal F15SE progamma, als aanvulling op de Israeli,... Denemarken, Noorwegen, Cananda en..... jawel.... Nederland (misschien zelfs aangevuld met België).
$ 100 mjn is € 60-65 mjn. € 4.5 mjd/gemiddeld € 62,5 = 72 kisten voor de BV NL... aangezien het er niet meer dan 68 zullen worden houden we zeker € 250 mjn over voor wat aanpassingen aan de infrastructuur of andere leuke dingen.
Ik zie het probleem niet!
Waar en wanneer kunnen we tekenen?
Citaat van: dudge op 05/12/2011 | 23:42 uur
Denk jij echt dat die 250 miljoen genoeg is? Lijkt me sterk allemaal. Nouja, er kan weer een VLB gesloten worden, levert ook nog wat op, maar al met al kan ik mij niet voorstellen dat de randvoorwaarden voor 5.5% van het budget geschapen kunnen worden, zeker niet als het om zo een enorm verschil gaat.
Ik heb geen idee of 250 mjn genoeg is, wellicht is de grootste kostenpost de bouw van nieuwe sheltes, waarbij het mijn overtuiging is dat we geen koude oorlogstijl shelters meer nodig hebben gezien alle bunker buster ontwikkelingen in oost en west.
Daarnaast is de post infrastructuur wellicht een ander potje, misschien weet een Klu'er hier het antwoord op.
Met de huidige dollar euro koers en als het bedrag feitelijk juist is ($100 mjn) is het in mijn ogen het beste Amerikaanse alternatief waarbij ik me realiseer dat het een erg grote kist is met twee motoren.
De technologie is voor het grootste deel bewezen en in het licht van de Europese alternatieven (Gripen uitgezonderd) hebben we het over 2 motorige kisten die in aanschaf ruim duurder zijn en vwb onderhoudt en prijs per vlieguur redelijk gelijk (Rafale) of duurder (EF) zijn.
Met 60 tot 68 kisten hebben we voldoende middelen om 2 VLB open te houden en voldoende middelen voor binnenlandsgebruik, training en opleiding en een incindentele safari.
Als ze mij de keuze zouden, dan zou ik hier niet lang over hoeven na te denken.
Flying into a defence disasterRobert Gottliebsen
Published 8:20 AM, 6 Dec 2011 Last update 10:20 AM, 6 Dec 2011
In the next few months, an event more dramatic for Australia than the export of uranium to India and one ranking alongside the European crisis looks like it will hit our country – the United States is getting closer and closer to abandoning the Joint Strike Fighter. If they do abandon what was to be our biggest defence purchase it will not only cost around 250,000 jobs around the world (including 5,000 to 10,000 in Australia) but it will also lock in Russian and Chinese air superiority in our region for the foreseeable future.
The Australian Department of Defence has conducted one of the biggest 'snow jobs' ever attempted on most Australian media so there has been little commentary warning of the looming JSF disaster. However, step-by-step the whole JSF program is unravelling.
The eurozone crisis was caused because Europe consistently denied that its banks and countries like Greece had a problem. Australia has undergone the same process of denial with the JSF, which has not only ballooned in cost and been hit by delays, but can't compete against the equivalent Russian and Chinese aircraft. If we face up to the problem, however, there is a solution that will keep most of the jobs and retain US air superiority in the region.
For the last four years in Business Spectator, and for a similar time before that in The Australian, I have been warning of the looming JSF problems. I am clearly not an expert on jet fighters but I came to realise that the Airpower Australia analytical group had a better understanding of the looming JSF disaster than the top defence chiefs. Events are now proving Airpower right.
Last year, the US appointed Vice Admiral David Venlet to take charge of the JSF program, which was experiencing enormous cost blowouts and delays. Now, as 2011 ends, he makes an incredible statement: "I have the duty to navigate this program through concurrency. I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticise and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it.
"My duty is to help us navigate through it."
In other words, the JSF is a program that should not have been undertaken in its present form but it's Venlet's job to proceed with it.
In his interview with the AOL defence newsletter he makes the astounding revelation that Fatigue testing and analysis are turning up so many potential cracks and "hot spots" in the Joint Strike Fighter's airframe that the production rate of the JSF (also called the F-35) should be slowed further over the next few years.
"The analysed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Venlet says. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs.
"I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."
The AOL defence newsletter says that the JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency – building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing – that assumed less change than is proving necessary.
"Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation," Venlet said. "You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us."
To add to the JSF woes, there have been two developers of JSF engines – Pratt and Whitney and GE and Rolls Royce. GE and Rolls Royce were ahead of Pratt and Whitney but lost funding at the start of this year. Because GE and Rolls believed that they were so far ahead, they were confident they would be recalled. Accordingly, they continued to develop their engines at their own cost but after the Venlet statement they pulled out.
One day Australia may wake up and find the JSF has been cancelled by the US and we will have nowhere to go. The JSF got into trouble because its design required catering for too many applications. Nevertheless, wonderful work has been undertaken on systems for the JSF. The US has a magnificent aircraft – the F22 – where production has been halted to concentrate on the JSF. The two programs should be merged and the JSF systems incorporated into the F22. That would protect jobs and enable the US to maintain air superiority in the region. But the F22 project is caught in a mire of politics. We need to help America through those political problems.
All Australian Air Force personnel (outside the top brass) fear we will go for the Hornets when the JSF is abandoned. The JSF will be inferior to the equivalent Russian and Chinese aircraft now coming off the production line. The Hornets are a joke against these aircraft.
These are important times for our nation's defence
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Joint-Strike-Fighter-JSF-Australian-Air-Force-defe-pd20111206-P9SL6?OpenDocument&emcontent_Gottliebsen
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/12/2011 | 07:31 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 05/12/2011 | 23:42 uur
Denk jij echt dat die 250 miljoen genoeg is? Lijkt me sterk allemaal. Nouja, er kan weer een VLB gesloten worden, levert ook nog wat op, maar al met al kan ik mij niet voorstellen dat de randvoorwaarden voor 5.5% van het budget geschapen kunnen worden, zeker niet als het om zo een enorm verschil gaat.
Ik heb geen idee of 250 mjn genoeg is, wellicht is de grootste kostenpost de bouw van nieuwe sheltes, waarbij het mijn overtuiging is dat we geen koude oorlogstijl shelters meer nodig hebben gezien alle bunker buster ontwikkelingen in oost en west.
Daarnaast is de post infrastructuur wellicht een ander potje, misschien weet een Klu'er hier het antwoord op.
Met de huidige dollar euro koers en als het bedrag feitelijk juist is ($100 mjn) is het in mijn ogen het beste Amerikaanse alternatief waarbij ik me realiseer dat het een erg grote kist is met twee motoren.
De technologie is voor het grootste deel bewezen en in het licht van de Europese alternatieven (Gripen uitgezonderd) hebben we het over 2 motorige kisten die in aanschaf ruim duurder zijn en vwb onderhoudt en prijs per vlieguur redelijk gelijk (Rafale) of duurder (EF) zijn.
Met 60 tot 68 kisten hebben we voldoende middelen om 2 VLB open te houden en voldoende middelen voor binnenlandsgebruik, training en opleiding en een incindentele safari.
Als ze mij de keuze zouden, dan zou ik hier niet lang over hoeven na te denken.
In de budgetpost van 4,5 miljard euro voor de vervanging van de F-16 zit ook nog 100 miljoen voor aanpassingen van infra-structuur
http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/vervanging_huidige_f16s_deel_6-t21497.0.html
Zie post van Poleme #876
dus dan heb je al 350 miljoen voor aanpassingen en ik ben met Jurrie eens dat je de vraag moet stellen of zwaarbeschermende bunkers nog nodig of zijn grote shelters/hangars ook voldoende. Ze zijn in iedergeval wel veel goedkoper en praktischer.
Als je kijk naar de afmetingen van onze shelters, dan kan ook een rafale, EF, F-18SH niet eens in deze shelters
Ook een F-35 is groter dan een F-16 !
Maar moeten we de keus van een toestel af laten hangen hoe groot de shelters zijn ?? denk het niet
Citaat van: Harald op 06/12/2011 | 09:29 uur
In de budgetpost van 4,5 miljard euro voor de vervanging van de F-16 zit ook nog 100 miljoen voor aanpassingen van infra-structuur
http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/vervanging_huidige_f16s_deel_6-t21497.0.html
Zie post van Poleme #876
dus dan heb je al 350 miljoen voor aanpassingen en ik ben met Jurrien eens dat je de vraag moet stellen of zwaarbeschermende bunkers nog nodig of zijn grote shelters/hangars ook voldoende. Ze zijn in iedergeval wel veel goedkoper en praktischer.
Als je kijk naar de afmetingen van onze shelters, dan kan ook een rafale, EF, F-18SH niet eens in deze shelters
Ook een F-35 is groter dan een F-16 !
Maar moeten we de keus van een toestel af laten hangen hoe groot de shelters zijn ?? denk het niet
Precies. In de tijd van domme bommen waren ze efficiënt, maar kijk naar de beelden van Joegoslavië, Irak en Lybië.
Eén bom, één bunker exit!
Veel belangrijker is dat je er voor zorgt dat een tegenstander het luchtruim ontzegt wordt middels een goede mix aan missile en A2A capaciteiten.
Expert wonders if it's time to put F-35 out of its misery
Tuesday - 12/6/2011, 10:16am ET
Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project, Center for Defense Information
By Michael O'Connell
Federal News Radio
The Pentagon's $380 billion F-35 joint strike fighter program is hitting turbulence. The Department of Defense says cracks and hot spots are showing up on the planes, and AOL Defense reports the program director wants to slow production so he can sort things out.
"The structural problems [are] just another bump in a long bumpy road," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. He joined the Federal Drive with Tom Temin and Amy Morris Tuesday to talk about what these problems mean for the F-35's future.
The next major hurdle awaiting the troubled aircraft is Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's budget decision. "It's unclear whether he's simply going to reduce the production buy or cancel one of the three models or how much he's going to delay further production before the test program is complete, which is one of the more insane aspects of this airplane," Wheeler said.
Shortcomings not new
The F-35's structural defects are not something new, but have been predicted since the 1990s. Wheeler said that these kinds of problems were inevitable in an ultra-complex, multi-service, multi-role airplane bought during an acquisition program that sought to buy hundreds of models before the test program was finished.
"The conventional view is that there is no alternative to this airplane," Wheeler said. "That is key to a belief about stealth that is not supported by the facts. The belief is that stealth is a characteristic that makes it invisible to radar. It's not. It's less visible against some radars at some angles."
Many viable alternatives to the F-35 exist, Winslow said, pointing to the F-15, F-16 and F-18, all of which are still in production. "Depending on what kind of airplane you want, you can adjust what's coming out of the production lines right now to address the needs of the Air Force and Navy."
Wheeler called the airplane both unaffordable and a huge disappointment in performance. "It's barely an improvement over existing models of airplanes," he said. "The smart thing to do would be to put this airplane out of its misery. The Pentagon's managers don't have the will ... to do that right now."
Instead, according to Wheeler, the managers will continue to "torture the plane" by reducing the production buy and delaying some things rather than cancelling the program. "All that's going to do is make the airplane more expense and even later than it is now," he said. "It's a band-aid approach which is not going to solve the fundamental problem that this plane presents."
A future without the F-35
If the U.S. added the F-35 to its tactical air forces, he said, their capabilities in the air would significantly decline.
Some have floated the idea of restarting the F-22 program rather than continuing with the the F-35. Wheeler called that a horrible idea. "That airplane is literally twice the cost of an F-35," he said. "The total program unit cost is now up to $400 million per airplane. ... It's performance is vastly overrated based on some strange exercises that the Air Force ran in Alaska a few years ago where it generated a really favorable exchange ratio but didn't test the airplane against its own vulnerabilities."
One of the things driving the F-35 program is the interest by foreign buyers in purchasing the plane once it comes online. Cancelling the program would leave those buyers out in the cold.
"Lockheed has been very skillful at getting eight to 10 foreign purchasers on the hook by getting them to invest in this airplane and to commit funds for it," Wheeler said. "As this airplane gets increasingly late and more expensive, a lot of those foreign purchasers are having the beginning of second thoughts."
The foreign buyers have other options available. Not only can they buy other American aircraft like the F-15 or the F-16, the can buy the Europeon Typhoon, the Swedish Gripen or the French Rafale. "They're actually in a better position to reconsider their purchase of this airplane and other alternatives," Wheeler said.
The U.S. should proceed with a properly conceived program to modernize its air forces, Wheeler said. It could accomplish this by not only replacing aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and A-10, but also by competing several prototypes in a combat-ready configuration. Production shouldn't take place until after the completion of the operational test program.
"If we were able to successfully design an airplane like we did with the F-16 and the A-10, for example, we'd have a far more capable tactical air force," he said. "That's certainly the way we should go, and we should certainly not settle for the degraded capability of the F-35."
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=65&sid=2658800
Are Pilots—or Robots—the Future of Naval Aviation?
America's aircraft carriers face fresh threats. But will the new breed of warplanes that meet those threats be flown by top Navy pilots, or will they be incredibly advanced autonomous UAVs? The dogfight for the future of navy flying is on.
By Joe Pappalardo
Northrop Grumman is making the Navy's newest experimental warplane, a carrier-ready UAV called the X-47B, shown here during structural stress tests at the company's facilities in Palmdale, Calif.
For Ensign Kyndra Chitwood, learning how to fly blind is just part of becoming a U.S. naval aviator.
The 23-year-old strides across the flight line at Naval Air Station Whiting Field. Around her, dozens of orange and white T-34 Mentor training aircraft are lined up, fuselages gleaming in the Florida sun. Pairs of student—trainer teams in flightsuits are making their way to and from the aircraft. A formation flight of two T-34s cruises overhead, wingtip to wingtip.
Chitwood is readying herself for a tense afternoon in the air. A typical five-day week at Whiting, 25 miles northeast of Pensacola in the Florida panhandle, features daily flying tests; each is a high-pressure evaluation. Today Chitwood must prove she can pilot the T-34 using instruments alone.
Just after takeoff she will pull a nylon hood across half of the cockpit canopy to block her vision, then steer the single-engine prop plane through landing approaches at several civilian airfields. She will be asked to demonstrate her ability to use GPS signals, UHF transponders on the ground and radio commands from radar operators.
Within 40 minutes of suiting up, Chitwood and her instructor are cleared for takeoff. The aircraft buzzes down the runway and sails into the sky, banking toward Marianna Municipal Airport, 120 miles east. She would normally handle takeoff on her own, but the instrument tests require that she sit in the T-34's back seat, so her instructor guides the aircraft into the air.
The clouds are so thick she can't see the horizon, so there's no need to pull the hood closed. Once her instructor removes his hands from the controls, the day's aerial evaluation will begin.
Primary flight instruction here is the start of a process that makes U.S. naval pilots the best in the world. Every student in the class is graded on a bell curve, and those who score highest usually get first choice of flight assignments.
These aviators are jockeying against one another for seats in cockpits, but the generation of naval pilots after Chitwood may be grounded by new competition: robots. The Navy is aggressively researching the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for jobs now performed by people. By the time a pilot like Chitwood retires in 2030, assuming a full career, there could be a lot fewer aircraft for her replacement to fly.
Dogfight for the Future
Strike fighters are the teeth of an aircraft carrier, protecting the ship from aerial threats and attacking targets on the ground. The idea that UAVs can perform these missions is heretical to officials who say that a carrier deck is too complex for an unmanned aircraft. But the orthodoxy is changing, and two naval aircraft are now vying for future dominance.
In one corner, there's the Navy's marquee future warplane, the F-35C Lightning II. A product of the Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35C will be the Navy's first stealth aircraft. At $133 million per airplane, it is the most expensive defense program in the world.
The JSF program started in 1996; five years later, Lockheed Martin beat Boeing for the multibillion-dollar contract. The program is producing three F-35 variants: one for the Navy, another for the Air Force and a short-takeoff and vertical-landing version for the Marine Corps. Each aircraft is now nearing the end of a tortured development—years late and tens of billions of dollars over budget.
In the opposing corner is the X-47B, an experimental airplane with something to prove. Even though it's just a demonstrator, it has folding wings that enable it to fit inside a carrier's hangar, twin weapons bays and the ability to fly at high subsonic speeds. The program started in 2000 as one of two $2 million concept studies, but the UAV is no longer a line-item underdog.
The X-47B is a testbed supporting the $2.5 billion Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program. UCLASS may result in an unmanned aircraft that can perform the same missions as the F-35C but would stay in the air longer and be harder to spot on radar.
When he was selected to head the X-47B program in late 2010, Capt. Jaime Engdahl thought the UAVs would be remotely piloted onto the deck with a joystick. "I didn't even realize, until I really started digging, how advanced some of the things that we're doing are," he says. "This is, no kidding, making an air vehicle that's autonomous and as self-sufficient as a naval aviator."
A few years ago, predictions that the F-35C would be the last piloted Navy fighter seemed overly dramatic. But as the X-47B progresses, the prediction is more realistic. The Navy will not deploy the F-35C on a carrier until late 2016. The Pentagon plans to integrate strike UAVs into the fleet by 2018.
Despite stalwart support from Navy brass, politicians are considering trimming the F-35C and other JSF variants: In 2010 the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Bowles-Simpson Commission) recommended halving orders of F-35Cs.
There are signs that the budget crisis may change the landscape within the Navy. Aviation Week obtained a 2011 memo from U.S. Navy Undersecretary Robert Work asking Navy brass to seek alternatives to the F-35C. (He also asked the Marine Corps to examine the impact of eliminating the problematic F-35B.) The response will be ready for the 2013 budget.
The Navy's need for the F-35C and the new UAVs is based on the emergence of fresh threats. Any future strike aircraft needs to be stealthy—advanced radar and antiaircraft missiles make strike and surveillance missions dangerous.
There are other threats that will likely force carriers to operate at greater distances from targets. China is fielding submarines that can lurk in the shallows, where side-scan sonar is less effective. These quiet subs are armed with sea-skimming missiles that can slip past a ship's defenses. The Russians build and sell sophisticated warplanes that can venture from air bases on land to swarm a carrier and its escorts with air-to-ship missiles.
The emergence of these close-to-shore threats is bad news for the Navy because the reach of its strike aircraft has been decreasing since the 1980s. The F-35C's 640-nautical-mile combat radius will reverse the trend, but UAVs such as the X-47B easily double that distance.
And there's another metric to consider: the amount of time a stealth warplane can linger over a target. The military calls this attribute persistence. A manned aircraft's persistence is limited by the endurance of the human onboard. A weaponized UAV, on the other hand, can track a target for dozens of hours in protected airspace and then drop a precision weapon on command.
"My thinking is that [UAV adoption] is too damn slow," Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said during a speech in August. "We've got to have a sense of urgency about getting this stuff out there."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/are-pilots-or-robots-the-future-of-naval-aviation
Where Robots Get Their Wings
This July, LT. Jeremy Debons made aviation history by doing nothing at all. DeBons, call sign Silas, flew a one-of-a-kind F/A-18D through the vast Atlantic test range off the coast of Virginia. His destination: the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower. The F/A-18D and the carrier were loaded with a slew of sensors that enabled the warplane to land on the carrier's deck without any piloting from the cockpit or remote operation by the ship's crew.
The F/A-18D was a surrogate for the X-47B demonstration aircraft. The goal of the summer tests was to prove that the brains of a robot can guide a warplane to a carrier's pitching deck. If this demonstration program succeeds, the Navy can proceed with the UCLASS procurement. After the X-47B becomes carrier-ready, it will then autonomously rendezvous with aerial refueling tankers.
Future unmanned aircraft will not be flown by crews via joystick, as Air Force personnel currently operate MQ-1B Predators. Once launched, a UAV following a prearranged mission plan will use onboard sensors to avoid other aircraft and dodge enemy attacks. It will also identify targets in the air and on the ground and track them without direct command. (These UAVs will contact controllers for permission to release weapons.)
Landing on an aircraft carrier is one of the most difficult feats of aviation, requiring a clever mesh of man and machine. The Navy is building the X-47B's landing capability on technology pilots use today, the Precision Approach Landing System. PALS uses SPN-46 radar to locate an aircraft in relation to a carrier.
To perform the occasional hands-off landing, such as when weather obscures the ship, an F/A-18 pilot can couple the plane's autopilot with PALS data. But the PALS radar covers only the rear of the carrier and is limited by the number of aircraft it can track simultaneously. These deficiencies make it unsuitable for controlling UAVs that are approaching to land.
Instead, the Navy's robotic landing system relies on precise GPS coordinates to obtain 360-degree coverage and automate navigation. The airplane calculates the appropriate flight paths around the ship as the carrier supplies the vessel's speed, the sea state and other data.
The concept behind the X-47B is to replace pilots—but not a ship's crew. As with other carrier-borne aircraft, the final approach of the unmanned vehicle would be monitored by the personnel onboard. Officers on the flight deck, the air traffic controller seated under the deck and officers peering from windows in the carrier's island all play a part in guiding the UAV.
Pilots most often talk with the ship by radio, but for a UAV verbal communication is replaced by digital commands. The carrier's air traffic controllers do the same job as an ATC crew in a civilian airport tower—if the runway were constantly changing location, the aircraft loaded with live weapons, and the process designed to produce as few electromagnetic emissions as possible to avoid detection.
"There's no benefit in changing the way we do deck handling," says Adam Anderson, who heads the carrier integration portion of the X-47B program at Patuxent River, Md. "We're looking at ways to make the least amount of impact. We want a paradigm shift in the number of missions the aircraft can do, but to have no shift in the way it lands."
DeBons's test flights on the Eisenhower went perfectly—the F/A-18D glided across the deck with its nose angled up until a hook on its tail snagged a cable stretched across the deck and jerked the aircraft to a halt. Still, the Navy test pilot says his hands never strayed too far from the controls.
"It wasn't anything new, perspective-wise, in the cockpit," DeBons told reporters after the flight. "But being a new system, as any test pilot will say, we're always on guard."
Human/UAV Coexistence?
The X-47B's next big milestone is a series of aircraft carrier launches and landings in 2013. That is the same year that the F-35C will operate for the first time on a carrier, making its initial sea trials.
A technology demonstrator is a long way from a production-ready warplane like the F-35C. Even the most gung-ho Navy official extolling UAVs also expresses support for the Lightning II. "As rapidly as we want to engage with the unmanned systems on carriers, we are also moving forward with an incredible capability in the Joint Strike Fighter," Roughead says. "We've got to get that aircraft."
The pilot is the F-35C's main limitation, but the human being in the cockpit may also be its salvation. The F-35C is designed to accommodate and enhance the most powerful processor available—the human brain. The aircraft's external sensors are patched directly into the pilot's helmet, allowing him to see 360 degrees by synthesizing data from the sensors, including six infrared cameras and radar. In short, there has never been a better airplane for picking targets and seeing threats.
"Target recognition often involves the generation and interpretation of high-resolution images," Owen Cote Jr., the associate director of MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote in a recent report. "At some point in the future it may become possible to automate that process, but today, and for a number of years, target recognition will require people to interpret the images ... It is difficult to imagine automating this."
Others caution putting too much faith in stealthy UAVs as a solution to every tactical and budgetary problem at the Pentagon. "If you canceled the F-35 you would have to do something else," says Douglas Barrie, military aerospace senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Do you kick off a whole new development program with all the inherent risks and costs that you've just gone through with the F-35?"
It appears that the Navy's near future will focus on human—robot teaming. The F-35C and UCLASS will operate from carriers simultaneously and fly missions next to each other in tomorrow's conflicts. "No platform fights alone anymore," says Edward Timperlake, a former analyst of emerging technology for the office of the secretary of defense. "It's a synergy between manned and unmanned."
But as time goes on, UAVs will become more capable and the ratio of manned to unmanned missions could dramatically shift in favor of the machines. "The era of manned airplanes should be seen as over," the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon says, echoing other military analysts.
Few young pilots see a threat looming. After all, the number of people the Navy needs to fly is holding steady. The students at Naval Air Station Whiting Field say their careers remain unclouded by robotic competition.
"I don't see anyone concerned about the community shrinking," says Lt. j.g. Bobby Lennon, who finished training at Whiting in August and will fly an MH-60S Knighthawk helicopter. "Maybe this will affect the jet guys more."
But the Navy's effort goes beyond the X-47B. The service is investing $8 billion over the next five years in a family of unmanned UAVs. For example, the Navy plans to retire fixed-wing EP-3 Aries signals intelligence reconnaissance planes and replace them with unmanned aircraft by 2020. The Navy is already operating unmanned reconnaissance helicopters—one was shot down during combat operations in Libya—and it is constructing larger ones to carry cargo and arming others with air-to-surface missiles.
Chitwood, who aced her instrument flight examination over Marianna Municipal and Tallahassee Regional airports, is also unfazed by the emergence of UAVs. "I'm not really worried," she says. "It's hard to integrate them into the fleet. Maybe when I'm close to being done flying I'll see the effect."
It doesn't seem fair to bring up the Navy's unmanned programs when face to face with young aviators. That's policy talk, and every new Navy pilot is solely focused on the work. For them, earning the right to do the job is the only tomorrow that matters.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/are-pilots-or-robots-the-future-of-naval-aviation-2
McCain Misfires on F-35: Rushes Towards the Past
By Robbin Laird
Published: December 6, 2011
Robbin Laird, a member of the AOL Board of Contributors, is a well known supporter of the F-35. When he read Sen. McCain's recent criticism of the program Laird immediately began to pen a rebuttal. We present his analysis and commentary.
The whirling dervish of the Senate has struck again. Rather than rebuilding US and allied defense capabilities after Afghanistan and Iraq, the senator is stuck in the 20th century. Rather than building a force appropriate to the 21st century around a core element – the F-35 – the senator continues his attacks on the program at the center of U.S. and allied and defense restructuring. These suggested actions would accede to the Chinese grand plan in the Pacific Basin by making our total joint Air Forces (US and allied) vulnerable to their missile systems and help ensure Chinese strategic superiority.
Not a good way to remember Pearl Harbor Day, we would think.
Focusing on the falsehood of the $1.2 trillion dollar airplane, and a complete disregard of every innovation generated by the program which will allow for a complete re-norming of Allied and US defense, the senator stands firm on cutting the program and stabbing our allies in the back. J'accuse, senator: you speak for the past; the future has left you behind.
Let us start with an amazingly flawed speech. We will then highlight what Sen. McCain either deliberately ignores or simply does not know. Either is bad enough.
Let us start with this. "If these costs of developing and buying the aircraft were not high enough, the Pentagon now estimates that operating and sustaining these new aircraft may cost as much as $1 trillion over their planned service life. Thankfully, we have reason to believe that this jaw-dropping number may be artificially high and can be reduced."
To set the record straight, the senator should ask his staff to do some homework. Shifting from the legacy air fleet to the F-35 fleet will save trillions of dollars in operational support. Although the headlines were generated on the more than $1 trillion in support costs of the F-35 fleet in 2065 dollars, what was missed that the legacy fleet in those very 2065 dollars would cost more than $4 trillion dollars.
The plane has been designed to optimize maintainability and to reduce the amount of touch labor on the plane by at least 30%. And the fleet commonality will lead to significant ability to operate, deploy and sustain fleets of aircraft.
Indeed, the JSF is a fleet, not a single plane. The senator never mentions the allies to whom the U.S. has committed to produce this aircraft soon and in manufactured numbers. The allies are completely missing in the senator's worldview, which is so Inside the Beltway.
The F-35 is part of enabling a coalition of like-minded states and of shaping a global fleet capability. Notably, allies worldwide are building ships upon which the F-35B could land and operate. The Italians have a carrier upon which the F-35B will land. And the senator apparently wishes to put our ability to work with the Italians and their generous hosting of the USN and Air Force in Italy at risk. Italy was the base from which most of the Libyan operation unfolded, yet there is not a shred of evidence that the senator connects his tirades on the F-35 with US allies. It reminds one of the great line in Animal House: "Your f.....d: You trusted us."
The myopic IOC focus on cost, forgets the capability issue, most notably coalition capability. In a cost downturn, the US wants to have fewer or more allies? The US wants to have a globally enabled fleet of C4ISR linked aircraft, or stovepiped fleets located on specific US decks?
By being a fleet, of As, Bs, and Cs, deployed worldwide the US and its allies can shape core capabilities in common. The senator simply misses this point. And as we have argued recently here the ability for allies to shape hubs, not bases, to allow the expansion of capability, for which the US taxpayer will play precious little.
And then there is the interview with the PAO [PEO Vice Adm. David Venlet] of the F-35 program with which the senator tees up his speech. If he or his staffers could read carefully, the core topic sentence for the interview as published is this one: "The required changes to the aircraft aren't a matter of safety or of the F-35's ability to perform its missions, Venlet said. They're necessary, though, to make sure the plane's structural parts last the 8,000 hours of service life required."
And the interview highlighted why the F-35 is a solid aircraft.
• The "weaknesses" are not an unusual occurrence in fighter aircraft development programs.
• "The discoveries are not a quote, 'problem' with the airplane."
• Flight-testing of the F-35 is 'going extremely well.'
• The modification vignette outlined in the fourth paragraph of the article is common practice for every current U.S. fighter aircraft program in existence today.
• By the end of the first quarter of 2014, the concurrency issues outlined in the article will be largely mitigated -- first lifetime durability testing will be complete (mid-2013) and full hardware qualification will be complete (Mar 2014). This provides maximum transparency and engineering insight for the production decision and final hardware configuration. Though Block 3 software development and testing will be on-going in 2014, the hardware necessary for Block 3 capabilities (TR-2) will be part of all Japanese LRIP-8 deliveries.
• Meeting the Stealth and Mission requirements of a 5th Generation Fighter
• Production completing at 2 per month and will be at 4 per month next year
• All known "hot spots" will be fixed by LRIP 8.
The plane is ready to be built now. It is built around an insertable chip and software upgradeable ongoing insertion package. The software will never be finished until the plane stops flying. The key change is that the hardware does not have to be modified dramatically with the insertion of chips and hardware,
The F-35 is not designed for the early century's concept of the knife fight; and it has the growth potential for internal changes to its systems to always incorporate the best weapons while expanding empowerment of combat pilots to have three-dimensional knowledge to elevate the fight to a new level.
In other words, the F-35 may actually be its own follow-on. For example, instead of the old paradigm of needing to completely build another fighter to move from the F-2A "grape" to F-4U "Whistling Death," the Marines can just change and update the F-35B system, sensors and weapons. The Marines flying the F-35B with a pre-planned product improvement design philosophy to pull and replace or add system capabilities will have total flexibility to add new sensors and improved AA missiles currently being designed.
Evolving concepts of Marine Corps operational development is at chapter one, because recognizing and exploiting man-machine three-dimensional knowledge is truly a brave new world. Consequently, the F-35B is capable of constantly updating the next generation of U.S. fighters but not by building a new airframe but staying inside the F-35B basic airframe and adding the next generation of systems and weapons.
The learning curve to improve sensors, system capability and weapons carried quickly compared to building another airframe may be a new American way of industrial surging. The American arsenal of democracy may be shifting from an industrial production line to a clean room and a computer lab as key shapers of competitive advantage.
And the Senator seemingly misses the 21st century fight. There are several aspects of what we already know about the F-35 that puts us into the future of air combat and does not keep us flying 40-year-old airframes and cobbling together fleets of stove-piped assets.
First, this year's Northern Edge highlighted the radar and mission systems of the F-35 are needed NOW. The performance of the systems was significantly greater than legacy aircraft, which, as the senator knows, are seriously compromised. A little staff work would be good here.
Why the policy community wishes to ignore Northern Edge is beyond us. But the survival of the US air fleet and every defense aspect, which depends on it, needs to take lessons learned already from the so-called non-functioning F-35 systems, which the senator alludes to.
Second, rolling out a Pacific strategy, which can deal with a determined and innovative competitor, will be difficult with less assets and financial pressures on the United States. So why not build an allied centered strategy built around F-35s and Aegis ships in the Pacific. Nearly 50% of those assets could be foreign and allow the US to play a considerably more effective role in the Pacific.
Third, core Asian allies can provide significant capability to defend themselves as well as to shape an effective networked capability for operations and deterrence. And significant defense reform is enabled by an act as simple as replacing the three F-16 squadrons with F-35As. As Secretary Wynne could remind Sen. McCain, three squadrons of F-35A's deployed throughout South Korea would be more survivable and save on manpower and support costs.
This early deployment would also bolster our position across the Pacific. South Korea would be seen as an anchor point for operations from Alaska to Australia. Australia is to receive their tranche of F-35′s in the out years; and would be thrilled to mix and match pilots into the Korean operating theater.
Fourth, if you did not have an F-35 you would have to invent it. A central capability of the F-35 is the integrated combat systems within the aircraft, which make it a very different animal than simply a replacement tactical aircraft. The F-35 is the first combat aircraft, which can see 360 degrees around itself and see more than 800 miles away. And the combat systems allow it to manage that space.
Notably, the Distributed Aperture System (which allows the 360 degree part) can provide the key tool around which missile defense systems can be integrated into a new sensor shooter relationship. As faster and longer-range missiles enter the world's inventory, an ability to defeat them is essential to the viability of a power projection force like the United States. The F-35 is the centerpiece of this new sensor-shooter relationship.
Even more compelling is the impact of the F-35 on infrastructure. First, there is the infrastructure to deploy. The F-35 is part of shaping a capability to have an economy of force strategy, whereby the availability of the joint services as well as partners will reduce the need to surge a unique service's planes to the problem.
Second, the maintenance revolution will reduce deployment costs. The shaping of a global sustainment strategy will allow sharing of parts and transparency in supply to allow for basing to become global. And the demands on the transportation system - notably air mobility assets - will come down.
Third, when returning from operations, the fleet will not need to bring home all of the kit it takes to battle. The global sustainment system allows for significant reductions in the footprint that needs to go to the battle. The recent leave-behinds in Iraq reminds one of how useful it is to have an agile sustainment system.
There are many other infrastructure commonalities. The new hangers being built now in Yuma, Arizona and at Eglin AFB will be essentially the same worldwide. The new deck coating laid down on the initial amphibious ships will be used widely to support the fleet. The list is long in this area. Again, having a fleet means economies of scale and savings.
But back in the IOC igloo, we are focused on today's estimate or perhaps sustainment dollars in 2065. Operational realities apparently do not matter.
Even more amazing is that the allied dimension is of no significance to residents of the IOC Igloo. Many of our closest allies are in the F-35 program. Every F-35 they buy becomes a member of the global fleet. Admiral Mullen once talked about the 1,000-ship Navy as something created by allied cooperation. This cooperation is built into every F-35 bought by allies. The notion of driving up costs by cutting numbers of aircraft runs in the face of supporting core allies.
Why don't the IOC Igloo residents just come out and say it: there is no strategic perspective on the table and it does not matter if the US throws its allies over the side. At least Lindbergh was honest enough to argue for his isolationist perspective in the 1930s. Eviscerating the global fleet of F-35s would be just that: Lindberghism for the 21st century.
We close with a simple fact. The F-35 is central to the viability of the Navy-Marine team. Without the F-35, the amphibious ready group will soon not have strike aircraft. Instead of being able to deploy 19 supersonic strike aircraft on a USS WASP, you will have none.
The Carrier Battle Group will become less capable of defending itself as the Chinese and others deploy more effective missile threats. If there is no F-35 as a key part of the offensive and defensive capabilities, these expensive assets can become wasting assets. This need not happen.
As we remember Pearl Harbor and the greatest generation, let us not forget this new one, and the I-Pad generation pilots. You cannot be the best flying 40-year-old airframes.
Robbin Laird, a member of the AOL Board of Contributors, is an international defense consultant, owner of the Second Line of Defense website and a former National Security Council staffer. Ed Timperlake, the co-author, is a former U.S. Marine who works with Laird.
This article has not been written at the direction of or under the behest of any corporation, service or element of the U.S. government. The views in this piece are those of the authors.
http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/06/mccain-misfires-rushes-towards-the-past/
Nog steeds zijn er problemen, welke zo 1-2-3 nog niet zijn opgelost
- The fuel dumping process on the F-35 unacceptable because it leaves fuel on the skin surface of the F-35.
- The tail hook on the carrier variant failed all of its tests and needs a redesign, possibly negatively impacting radar signature.
- The reliability of the integrated power pack (IPP) is very low.
- The helmet display continues to be problematic.
- An unspecified classified issue. (dit is een lekkere)
- The Secretary of the Air Force has confirmed that there are still "outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training."
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/2011 ... -f-35.html
F-35 clearly not ready for prime time
Some things have come into sharper focus about the state of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program in the wake of both Vice Adm. David Venlet's interview with AOL Defense and a story Monday by Tony Capaccio of Bloomberg News (subscription).
The first is that in almost 10 years of development, and despite a reportedly strong period of successful flight testing, is that the airplanes are apparently still far from ready for even really challenging testing. With 90-plus F-35s of the three variants -- really very different planes -- already built or in production, much, much more development and testing remains and, we know now, re-work too.
The much-touted ability of Lockheed Martin and its key partners to concurrently design, develop and build production aircraft was, to put it kindly, way, way oversold.
Venlet said as much in his interview last week.
"Fundamentally that was a miscalculation," Venlet said. "You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us."
Lockheed, in a statement, disagreed with Venlet and defended concurrent development and production.
The concurrency costs for F-35 continue to reduce for each lot as experienced by all fighter aircraft development programs. Going forward the savings associated with building at increased production rates will continue to mitigate the diminishing concurrency costs.
Capaccio's story, based on an internal Pentagon document of the kind he has a knack for getting his hands on, shed's a even more light.
In one recent month, apparently October, there were 725 pending design "change requests," according to the Bloomberg piece. "These figures are indicative of the large volume of change on this program and low design maturity," it said.
The Star-Telegram has recently requested information from the program office on numbers of engineering change orders, and who initiated them, but has yet to get any response.
Bloomberg cited some of the existing problems spotlighted in the Pentagon report, which is being studied by policy makers as they plan how to proceed with the F-35 program.
One of the big problems is with the tail hook arresting gear mechanism on the F-35C that is supposed to bring the planes to a screeching halt in landings aboard Navy carriers.
The tail hook mechanism failed all eight landing attempts in tests and requires significant and, apparently, challenging redesign of the system and perhaps the aircraft structure itself. "If this change is not successful there is risk for significant airframe structures redesign and or impacts to overall" radar signature, the report said.
The U.S. Air Force has apparently also has come to the conclusion it's a little too early to let anyone but its test pilots fly the F-35. InsideDefense.com reports (pay-per-view) that Air Force Secretary Michael Donley has agreed with Director of Operational Testing Michael Gilmore that the F-35 is not ready to begin pilot training at Eglin Air Force Base in Fla.
"The Air Force agreed with Dr. Gilmore that there were still outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training at Eglin AFB," according to a summary of a memo Donley sent to Frank Kendall, DOD's acting head of weapons acquisition. "We emphasized that a military flight release (MFR), which would permit flight operations to begin, will not be issued, and subsequently training in [conventional-takeoff-and-landing] aircraft will not commence, until these risks have been accepted or mitigated using established processes."
As with most big defense programs, to paraphrase Texas songwriter Robert Earl Keen, "The road goes on forever" and the debate never ends. Defense critic Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information said Tuesday "the smart thing to do is put this airplane out of its misery" but doubts DoD has the political will to do that.
But a former U.S. National Security Council staff member and defense consultant Robbin Laird says critics, notably Sen. John McCain, can't see the future from the past and are ignoring the great strides in military capabilities the F-35 will eventually bring to U.S. forces.
Read more: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2011/12/two-things-have-come-into-focus-about-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-in-the-wake-of-both-vice-adm-david-venlets-inter.html#ixzz1frBkFppJ
Ook in Frankrijk neemt de spanning bij Dessault toe... nu nog nagelbijten om India en Brazilië anders (?) (na 2018)
Zie deze Duitsetalig nieuwsberichten:
Frankreich droht mit Ende für Rafale-Kampfjets
Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2011, 16:57 Uhr
http://www.tagesschau.sf.tv/Nachrichten/Archiv/2011/12/07/Wirtschaft/Frankreich-droht-mit-Ende-fuer-Rafale-Kampfjets
http://derstandard.at/1323222492390/Kein-Exporterfolg-Frankreichs-Rafale-Kampfjet-vor-dem-Aus
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/12/2011 | 17:49 uur
Ook in Frankrijk neemt de spanning bij Dassault toe... nu nog nagelbijten om India en Brazilië anders (?) (na 2018)
...Frankreich-droht-mit-Ende-fuer-Rafale-Kampfjets
...Kein-Exporterfolg-Frankreichs-Rafale-Kampfjet-vor-dem-Aus
Dat zou ik zeer jammer vinden, want dan valt er meteen een constructeur weg in Europa.
Echter, Frankrijk kennende zie ik Dassault en de Rafale nog niet zo snel verdwijnen.
De "Staat" zal hiervoor (hopelijk) wel zorgen, want die staat wil niet afhankelijk zijn van vreemde leveranciers.
Dat is voordien ook met DCNS (scheepsbouw) en GIAT/Nexter (LM materiaal) gebeurd.
Eigenlijk komt het er op neer dat men een beetje te ver doorgeslagen is naar de hoogtechnologische kant waardoor
de te recupereren R&D en Produtiekosten te hoog uitvallen voor potentiële klanten, of dat gelijkaardige producten goedkoper (al dan niet gesubsidieerd) uitkomen.
Landen kunnen best tevreden zijn met een Gripen (al dan niet NG) of (tweedehandse) F-16.
De economische crisis draagt ook nog eens haar steentje bij: tal van overheden trekken de riem aan, en zeker vwb Defensieuitgaven.
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 07/12/2011 | 18:28 uur
Dat zou ik zeer jammer vinden, want dan valt er meteen een constructeur weg in Europa.
Echter, Frankrijk kennende zie ik Dassault en de Rafale nog niet zo snel verdwijnen.
De "Staat" zal hiervoor (hopelijk) wel zorgen, want die staat wil niet afhankelijk zijn van vreemde leveranciers.
Dat is voordien ook met DCNS (scheepsbouw) en GIAT/Nexter (LM materiaal) gebeurd.
Eigenlijk komt het er op neer dat men een beetje te ver doorgeslagen is naar de hoogtechnologische kant waardoor
de te recupereren R&D en Produtiekosten te hoog uitvallen voor potentiële klanten, of dat gelijkaardige producten goedkoper (al dan niet gesubsidieerd) uitkomen.
Landen kunnen best tevreden zijn met een Gripen (al dan niet NG) of (tweedehandse) F-16.
De economische crisis draagt ook nog eens haar steentje bij: tal van overheden trekken de riem aan, en zeker vwb Defensieuitgaven.
Het is natuurlijk nog lang geen 2019 en er zijn nog wel een aantal export kansen voor de Fransozen met hun Rafale, het is voor Europa van belang dat er meer er export orders worden geschreven, dit geldt natuurlijk ook voor EADS en Saab (alle "thuis" orders zijn vrijwel uitgeleverd)
Zodra een prductielijn is uitgeproduceerd dan zal deze snel worden opgeheven, in de VS is de F16, zoals het er nu (nog) naar uit ziet, EXIT per medio 2013 (als er geen nieuwe orders worden geschreven, dan valt de block 60+ automatisch af voor de Klu)
Als de Rafale productie daadwerkelijk stop in 2019, dan hoeft dat natuurlijk ook geen ramp te zijn, het is dan wel einde voor nieuwe Rafales maar het biedt ook kansen voor de ontwikkeling van een opvolger van de huidige 4/4,5 generatie Europese gevechtsvliegtuigen, deze zullen immers tussen 2035-2045 vervangen moeten worden.
Reken 15 tot 20 jaar voor de ontwikkeling van een opvolger en het sluit mooi aan op de behoefte.
Swiss Give Saab, Gripen NG A Boost
Dec 7, 2011
By Robert Wall
London
Swiss Defense Minister Ueli Maurer is unabashed in acknowledging that the government did not opt for the most capable aircraft when it decided on the Saab Gripen NG over the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. Instead, it went with the aircraft that met its objectives—and at a cost that leaves money on the table for other defense needs. It would be simplistic to write this off as a Swiss banker's mentality at work. Actually, the choice is not far off the U.S. KC-X tanker decision in which price topped overall capability in the Pentagon's process when it opted for the Boeing 767 tanker over the EADS A330 offering.
If this mindset catches on, it could prove to be good news for the Gripen more broadly. With a new round of fighter competitions in the offing—many associated with countries without the high-end threat concerns underpinning the competitive landscape in places such as Japan and South Korea—price considerations could be on the rise. Denmark and Bulgaria, for instance, are looking at fighter procurements, and the Czech Republic and Hungary, where Gripen is the incumbent, also have to solidify their long-term fighter plans as their existing leases are coming to an end.
For Saab, the Swiss decision to buy 22 JAS 39E/F Gripen NGs to replace its F-5 Tiger force has the additional benefit of putting the next-generation version of the single-engine fighter on a firm footing. While Sweden had said all along it would buy the aircraft, receiving an export commitment early formalizes the schedule.
Sweden, which was planning to field the aircraft around 2017, had committed to accelerating its schedule to match that of any export customer. Switzerland is expecting to field its first aircraft in 2015, with deliveries spanning 2-3 years, so now Stockholm is looking to place an initial order for around 10 aircraft ahead of its original plans. A day after the Swiss announcement, the Swedish parliament's defense committee confirmed the early purchase of 10 JAS 39E/Fs. The full government is set to sign off on the specifics of the deal next year.
That could be important news for the competition also in Brazil, where Gripen is facing the Boeing F/A-18E/F and Rafale. A type selection is expected in the first quarter, with Brazilian air force officials saying the new aircraft should be fielded in 2017.
For Dassault, the Swiss decision is only the latest in a series of stunning setbacks for Rafale in the export realm. The development is particularly painful coming only days after the United Arab Emirates put its long-anticipated Rafale purchase into doubt, blaming the company for not matching the French government's willingness to cut a deal. But it is also a setback for French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been crusading on behalf of Rafale.
The French government/industrial team was optimistic it could sway Switzerland to buy Rafale, in part by promising to provide easy access to training ranges in France and by helping the Swiss air force to overcome the problem of the tight airspace restrictions it faces in its own country.
Dassault argues that Switzerland could have met its requirements with fewer aircraft—at an equivalent or lower cost—if it had simply opted for Rafale. Maurer retorts that the government examined buying fewer aircraft, but wanted to have enough on hand to field two operational squadrons and meet training needs (the program had already been curtailed from fielding three squadrons).
The decision also marks a setback for the other contender, Typhoon. The consortium was hoping Switzerland would be enticed by the fact that three of its direct neighbors—Germany, Italy and Austria—already operate the aircraft.
For Typhoon, but even more so for Rafale, the Swiss choice intensified the pressure on securing India's Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft program—where the two are the sole remaining contestants now that Gripen and others have been eliminated. It is the largest fighter program currently in competition and a decision could come before year-end.
Both can perhaps derive some benefit from the Swiss decision, since Maurer suggests each of the losing contestants provided higher performance, something India may prize more than Switzerland did. What is more, the Swiss defense minister says the offers from all three contestants met the government's requirements in terms performance, industrial participation and 100% contract offsets.
Nevertheless, he left little doubt that the Gripen was a clear choice. The procurement costs were considerably lower—they are expected to come in below 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.2 billion)—and it also held the edge in terms of life-cycle cost over 30 years.
Moreover, Switzerland was pleased with the potential for industrial cooperation on offer from Saab. With the NG development still to be completed, there is an opportunity for higher value technical work. Although a number of Swiss companies should benefit from the deal—they would have, no matter who won—Ruag is likely the biggest beneficiary. A company official notes that it was important that it serve as the maintenance, repair and overhaul center for the aircraft, no matter which candidate was chosen.
Switzerland and Sweden will now begin refining the program. In the next several months, they will decide how pilot training may be set up, including potential training in Sweden. Also still under review is the site of the final assembly plant.
Along with location, the specific aircraft configuration is still under discussion, and that continues to be a contentious point. Switzerland had indicated it would buy an off-the-shelf aircraft, and the developmental nature of elements of the NG is raising more than eyebrows. "The 'Swiss-tailored' Gripen only exists on paper," complain Dassault officials, adding that "Its technical development and production risk significantly increases the financial efforts required of the Swiss authorities to accomplish the country's fighter aircraft program."
Once the program is finalized, it will still need endorsements from several political entities, including a submission to parliament around mid-2012, with the goal of completing the deal by the end of the year for inclusion in the 2013 procurement plan. A fighter purchase in Switzerland is always fraught with discord, but the deal is likely to pass because a majority in parliament is eager to make it happen. In fact, the executive branch was ready to hold off, but parliament decided to push the issue in part to take advantage of the strong Swiss franc, which provides a relative price advantage for the fighter.
Maurer says decisions are still pending about the Gripen serving as the eventual replacement of Switzerland's existing fleet of older F/A-18s. It certainly would be a contender, but so would other aircraft, both manned and unmanned, he suggests.
For Saab, there is one more upside; Uncertainty over its Gripen production line has been eased considerably. Of the existing Western competitors in the market for fighter exports, Gripen had the smallest backlog. The Swiss deal, coupled with the Swedish plans, effectively leave Saab in a secure spot until at least the end of the decade.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/12/05/AW_12_05_2011_p36-400600.xml&headline=Swiss%20Give%20Saab,%20Gripen%20NG%20A%20Boost&next=10
En zo wordt de toekomst van de NG langzaam een positieve zekerheid.
Production on France's Rafale fighter jets could be stopped, defense minister says
By Associated Press,
PARIS — Production on France's Rafale fighter jet could be stopped if foreign buyers don't materialize, the country's defense minister warned Wednesday.
Gerard Longuet maintained that the Rafale — which has long failed to win any contracts abroad and is currently used solely by the French armed forces — is an "excellent plane." However, he acknowledged the Rafale is handicapped by its price, which is higher than its U.S. rival.
"If (French aviation company) Dassault doesn't sell the plane abroad, its production will in fact be stopped," Longuet said Wednesday in an interview with LCP television. He added that production would not be wound down until Dassault delivers its orders to the French armed forces.
Much anticipated sales to Brazil and Libya failed to materialize, but Longuet stressed that the Rafale remains in the running for deals with United Arab Emirates and India. Dassault is up against European consortium Eurofighter for the $11 billion Indian deal for 126 multi-role combat aircraft.
Last month, Switzerland announced it had opted against the Rafale and planned to buy 22 Gripen fighter jets from Sweden's Saab AB for an estimated 3.1 billion francs ($3.37 billion). The Swiss Cabinet said cost was a factor in its decision to go with for the Gripen.
Asked about the Swiss deal, Longuet said the "Swiss army was leaning toward the Rafale," but the government decided the Gripen "sufficed" to meet the needs of a neutral country where jets are not used in combat missions.
In service for the French Air Force since 2006, the Rafale has been flying air support roles in Afghanistan since 2007 and saw extensive action in the recent NATO campaign in Libya, which was built solely on airpower.
Longuet added that in the event of a production halt, existing Rafale jets would continue to be serviced till the end of their 40-year lives.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.
dat zat er in, als je de hoofdprijs vraagt, maar wel weer goed nieuws voor de Gripen NG en Typhoon weer een concurrent minder.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/12/2011 | 21:21 uur
dat zat er in, als je de hoofdprijs vraagt, maar wel weer goed nieuws voor de Gripen NG en Typhoon weer een concurrent minder.
Deze conclusie wil ik pas trekken na de beslissingen van India en Brazilië.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/12/2011 | 21:25 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/12/2011 | 21:21 uur
dat zat er in, als je de hoofdprijs vraagt, maar wel weer goed nieuws voor de Gripen NG en Typhoon weer een concurrent minder.
Deze conclusie wil ik pas trekken na de beslissingen van India en Brazilië.
Bovendien, het bericht kun je ook zien als onderhandelingstactiek naar bijvoorbeeld de Emiraten. Mes op de keel: "Als je hem nu niet wilt, jammer, dan stoppen we gewoon met de productie. Geen enkel probleem."
Dus nu kiezen, of anders pech. Dit gezien de vertragingstactieken bij diverse potentiële afnemers.
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 07/12/2011 | 23:26 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/12/2011 | 21:25 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/12/2011 | 21:21 uur
dat zat er in, als je de hoofdprijs vraagt, maar wel weer goed nieuws voor de Gripen NG en Typhoon weer een concurrent minder.
Deze conclusie wil ik pas trekken na de beslissingen van India en Brazilië.
Bovendien, het bericht kun je ook zien als onderhandelingstactiek naar bijvoorbeeld de Emiraten. Mes op de keel: "Als je hem nu niet wilt, jammer, dan stoppen we gewoon met de productie. Geen enkel probleem."
Dus nu kiezen, of anders pech. Dit gezien de vertragingstactieken bij diverse potentiële afnemers.
Daarnaast... als de productie stopt, dan is dat niet eerder dan in 2018 of 2019, dus de boys hebben nog een jaar of 6 om toestellen te verkopen met daarnaast een aantal ijzers in het vuur.
The F-35, a $400 Billion Boondoggle
Posted: 12/ 7/11 04:50 PM ET
InsideDefense confirmed Tuesday "that there are still 'outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training..." It interpreted that confirmation as "a sign of concurrence with the Pentagon's top weapons tester that the F-35 is not yet ready for unmonitored flight or formal training."
Monday, John McCain stood up on the floor of the Senate and said "it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here..." McCain was quoting an interview that AOL Defense had conducted with Vice Admiral David Venlet about the F-35. McCain then went on to say, "When the head of the most expensive, high-profile systems program in U.S. history effectively says, 'Hold it! We need to slow down much we are buying!' We should all pay close attention."
It isn't quite that simple. InsideDefense reports that on October 24th, Venlet "and Lt. Gen. Thomas Owen, the commander of the Aeronautical Systems Center, argued that the JSF program... should begin training at Eglin AFB [Air Force Base] as soon as an event-driven process results in a military flight release." Previously, on October 21st, "Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation, wrote a memo to Frank Kendall, DOD's acting acquisition chief" detailing his concerns with "safety shortfalls" and recommended a delay "in the start of training for an estimated ten months."
Velent and Owen wanted it to begin sooner, but DOD's acting acquisition chief "requested a reply from Air Force Secretary, Michael Donley, that it was the service's responsibly to address the issues..." On November 22nd, Donley replied that the service "shares some concerns with Gilmore" InsideDefense, quoting from Donely's memo, said "The Air Force agreed with Dr. Gilmore that there were still outstanding risks with the Joint Strike Fighter training at Eglin AFB" He added "that a military flight release (MFR), which would permit flight operations to begin would not be issued... until these risks have been accepted or mitigated... We have made clear to all involved that there is no pressure to initiate training".
According to InsiderDefense, Gilmore's memo had outlined "a number of airworthiness criteria... that the JSF has yet to meet." Owen and Venlet reported that they had made progress regarding some of those criteria. Nevertheless, Donley, confirmed there are still outstanding risks associated with the Joint Strike Fighter flight training and appeared to overrule objections from Venlet and Owen.
The cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already approaching $400 billion. Senator McCain wants Lockheed Martin, the F-35 contractor "to assume an increase share of any cost overruns." AOL Defense reports that "Late Monday afternoon, the Pentagon announced that a contract agreement on LRIP 5 [low rate initial production] had been reached." No details of the sharing arrangement were revealed.
McCain, again quoting AOL Defense, said "that the path we are on is neither affordable nor sustainable... If things do not improve -- quickly -- tax payers and the war fighter will insist that all options will be on the table. And they should be. We can not continue on this path." AOL Defense reminded us that last summer, McCain, who is the leading Republican on the Senate Armed Services, "came within a whisker of putting the program on Death Row." That would be throwing $400 billion down the drain, but since Lockheed and the military both admit that the amount of money necessary to correct the risks cannot be accurately estimated, we don't know how much more it will cost or how valuable it would be in fighting the next generation of wars.
It has been more than 10 years since the F-35 contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin, almost half a trillion dollars has been spent on its development. Generals and admirals, civilian scientists and acquisition "experts," cabinet officials and Senators are engaged in the battle for its survival, and it still seems tied up in miles of red tape. Even with all the scurrying about of the last few months, no one is willing to put a delivery date on the F-35.
With the nation in grave economic distress, why are some Congressmen and Senators refusing to cut defense spending? If we hadn't invested in the F-35, our national debt would be almost 3 percent less than it is now. Almost everyone believes that our government wastes a lot of money. The F-35 may yet be the biggest waste in history.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/mccain-jsf-program_b_1132570.html
12/7/2011
Analyst: Without F-35B, Marine Corps' Brand Would Be Weakened
Twice a month, the commandant of the Marine Corps confers with the upper management of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter program. No detail about this program is too small for Gen. James Amos, said his deputy Gen. Joseph Dunford.
Tactical aviation is the Marine Corps' top modernization priority, Dunford said Dec. 7. "We haven't bought new airplanes in a decade," he said.
The unprecedented involvement of the highest ranked Marine in a weapons acquisition program is proof that the stakes in F-35B — a fighter/bomber aircraft that takes off and lands vertically like a helicopter — have become too high to leave anything to chance.
"Losing the F-35B would really collapse the entire structure of the Marine Corps," said Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security analyst at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute.
The bottom line is that without F-35B, Marine aviation operations would be reduced to just helicopters. "They would become a consumer of other people's firepower rather than a producer of firepower," Donnelly said Dec. 7 at a Center for Strategic and International Studies forum, in Washington, D.C.
Donnelly defended the Marines' all-in strategy to ensure the aircraft survives both technical and budgetary challenges. A Pentagon budget crunch currently threatens the entire Joint Strike Fighter program — which also includes Air Force and Navy variants.
Marines should go even further in their advocacy of F-35B and make a case that Marine aviation can at times be more valuable than Navy carrier-based aviation, said Donnelly. "A large-deck amphibious ship with 30 stealthy jump jets may be more productive and capable in some cases than a large-deck Navy aircraft carrier with 60 F/A-18s," he said. "That's something that we should think about."
The Marine Corps also should seize the F-35 budget battle as an opportunity to promote the potential value of F-35B as a powerful weapon that can penetrate highly defended areas and would be hard to shoot down by enemy missiles, said Donnelly. Marines need to be "cocking an eye in the direction of operating in the anti-access environment," he said. "Not just in the Far East but elsewhere."
Marine aviation is the Corps' best hope to secure a role that is unique, rather than be perceived as a second land army, Donnelly said. "Marines in land wars is not the best use of the Marine Corps," he said. The Pentagon should "get Marines out of obligations in the Middle East and put them at sea, in places like the South China Sea."
Critics have denounced the F-35B as an exotic and costly weapon that is not essential to national security and expendable in times of economic hardship. But Marines remain undeterred by the flak.
The recent air war over Libya offered Marines the chance to show the prowess of their AV-8B Harrier jump jets, which the F-35B is scheduled to replace over the next decade. In NATO's close-air support missions, the Harrier competed with the Air Force's A-10 attack aircraft, according an industry source. Air Force officials, this source said, in fact were questioning why Harriers were assigned CAS missions over Libya when, they argued, the A-10 arguably might have been a better choice.
Dunford, speaking at the CSIS forum, characterized tactical aviation as one of the top three items on the Marine Corps' equipment wish list, along with "ship to shore" and ground tactical vehicles. Asked whether he was referring specifically to the F-35B, Dunford said the priority is aviation "writ large," rather than a particular program.
A Marine Corps spokesman noted that, besides the F-35B, the rest of the service's aviation efforts focus on rotary-wing aircraft, refueling tankers and drones.
The MV-22 Osprey is replacing CH-46 helicopters, the UH-1Y/AH-1Z is replacing the UH-1N and AH-1W choppers; the KC-130J will take over for the KC-130T tankers, and CH-53K is planned to take up the role of the aging CH-53E. "Of those, the H-1 upgrades program would accomplish the offensive air support function," said the spokesman. "We are also moving forward with efforts to weaponize the Shadow unmanned air vehicle."
The fight for the F-35B is expected to endure for some time as the Pentagon continues to work with the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp., to get the program back on track after years of delays and cost overruns.
Congressional critics already have put the F-35 program in their crosshairs as they seek ways to reduce the government's rising budget deficits. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has suggested that only the Air Force needs JSF. He suggested that both the Navy and the Marine Corps should cancel it, continue to buy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, and in the process save $18 billion through 2021. "The F/A-18 Super Hornet provides service-specific capabilities for the Navy and Marine Corps," Coburn wrote in his deficit-reduction proposal. "However, this option would not replace the AV-8 Harriers of the Marine Corps. This option assumes Marine ground forces would not enter an area with contested airspace without the support of an aircraft carrier for close-air support."
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=611
India May Cancel Fighter Competition
Dec 6, 2011
By Leithen Francis
LANGKAWI, Malaysia — Victor Komardin, the deputy director of Russia's arms export agency Rosoboronexport, contends that the two short-listed candidates for India's Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition have effectively ruled themselves out by putting too high a price on their fighters.
India's politicians told the local press earlier this year that the MMRCA contract was a $10 billion deal, but reports from India in recent weeks say the manufacturers of the two finalist aircraft, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, are each asking for around $20 billion to fulfill the 126-aircraft order, Komardin says.
"Against the backdrop of the [financial] crisis [sweeping the world], it is hard to see how any government would allow such a waste of money, particularly when there are social problems" to deal with, Komardin says. "And there is no imminent threat to India's [sovereignty]. My prediction is that this tender will be canceled." Komardin spoke to Aviation Week on the sidelines of the LIMA Airshow in Langkawi, Malaysia.
India and Russia are close partners on defense. Rosoboronexport's MiG-35 was on the long list for India's MMRCA competition. Komardin says the MiG-35 was withdrawn from the competition before the short list was decided. If India issues a new tender, it creates an opportunity for Russia and the U.S. to rejoin the competition.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/12/07/02.xml&headline=India%20May%20Cancel%20Fighter%20Competition
Constateer ik hier wish-full thinking van de (verslagen) concurrentie of zit hier een kern van waarheid?
Als het goed is, dan zullen we het nog deze maand weten.
Kunnen die US Marines niet uit de voeten met een Sea Gripen NG als de F35B niet door zou gaan?
Er zijn geruchten dat India in z'n competitie de winnaar in de komende dagen gaat aankondigen !! Spanning stijgt
MMRCA, rumors of an announcement tomorrow
According to Stephen Trimble's blog on Flight Global, there would be rumors that the MMRCA winner could be announced tomorrow December 9.
The MMRCA winner should be revealed this month as the Dassault and EADS bids are expiring at the end of the year but most experts are expecting the annoucement to be made during the second half of December since Air Force Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne statement on Novemeber 18.
On the other hand, It's been one full month since the opening of the bids on November 4 and the Indian Ministry of Defense had stated then that 3 to 4 for weeks would be necessary to assess both offers and select the best one.
So, as usual, wait and see...
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00%2B01%3A00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00%3A00%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=50
PICTURE: Raptor snapshots by the Rafale
At LIMA 2011 air show in Malaysia, Dassault released a set of imagery from an apparent engagement between the Rafale and the Lockheed Martin F-22. One of the images have been released before, and it came from the sort-of-friendly fighter jet show-down in November 2009 at Al Dhafra AB, United Arab Emirates.
The imagery was released as part of a plug for the Rafale's infrared search and track sensor, called the Thales front sector optronics system.
These are desperate times for Dassault's fighter programme. The manufacturing house that produced the Mirage and Rafale fighter series has lost a series of competitions, including most recently in Switzerland. Defense Minister Gerard Longuet warned yesterday that the Rafale line will be closed in the absence of export orders. That may seem like merely stating the obvious, but the timing of Longuet's statement makes it a warning. India is rumoured to be set to announce tomorrow the outcome of the competition for the medium multi-rote combat aircraft (MMRCA), with only the Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon still in the running.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/picture-raptor-snapshots-by-th.html
EAU, Flight global video report about the contest
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/12/eau-flight-global-video-report-about.html
Citaat van: Harald op 09/12/2011 | 10:38 uur
Er zijn geruchten dat India in z'n competitie de winnaar in de komende dagen gaat aankondigen !! Spanning stijgt
MMRCA, rumors of an announcement tomorrow
According to Stephen Trimble's blog on Flight Global, there would be rumors that the MMRCA winner could be announced tomorrow December 9.
In dit kader snap ik de berichten (van deze week) van Frankrijk niet om te gaan stoppen met de Rafale productie vanaf 2018/19 als er geen export orders geschreven zouden worden, dit was immers al lang een bekend feit want tegen die tijd is men klaar met de uitlevering van de eigen bestelling.
Het levert ook geen druk op beslissingstrajecten derhalve een volledig overbodige en zelfs dommer opmerking.
Gripen might be built in Switzerland
According to earlier reporting, Switzerland plans to buy 22 JAS Gripen fighter jets from Saab in Sweden. But according to Östgöta Correspondenten, the fighter jets might be built in Switzerland instead of the normal production in Linköping, Sweden.
In Saab's offer to Switzerland there was a clause giving Switzerland, the possibility to decide where the final assemblage of the aircrafts will take place. If it is done in Switzerland, it will have consequences for the number of jobs needed in Linköping. According to Saab however, the number of jobs affected is limited.
http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=8148
EU Crisis Will 'Clearly' Hit JSF, Dempsey Says
By Carlo Munoz
Published: December 9, 2011
WASHINGTON: The unfolding economic crisis threatening the European Union could ripple through the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's crucial international program, the Pentagon's top military officer said today.
Partner nation participation in the JSF program "will clearly [be] put at risk if all the predictions about an [European] economic collapse would occur," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said today. Four of the eight international JSF partners -- the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands and Denmark -- are EU members. Spain is also reportedly looking at joining the JSF international coalition. But those plans could fall by the wayside if the EU cannot keep its members from financially collapsing.
Spain and Italy are rumored to be the next recipients of EU-financed bailout. Over the past several months European Union members have already bailed out the governments of Greece and Ireland. The United Kingdom is already implementing draconian defense spending cuts casting a pall over the fighter program's biggest international partner. Things took a turn for the worse today when the United Kingdom blocked a new fiscal austerity plan pitched by France and Germany during an emergency EU summit in Brussels today.
Dempsey would not say if these recent developments would force JSF partner nations to leave the program or dramatically cut their planned purchases of the F-35. But he did note the EU economic crisis was cause for concern inside the Pentagon. "They would have to make some decisions . . . on the reallocation of resources that could potentially affect the JSF," Dempsey said. The UK says they need 150 jets to support their aircraft carrier fleet but may end up buying less than that. Things are getting difficult for the program on the home front as well, the four-star general admitted.
The Pentagon is already facing a $450 billion budget cut over the next decade. That number could grow to roughly $1 trillion with the recent failure of the congressional Super Committee. Those cuts will result in "fact of life" changes to the program. Changes that could force the department to stretch out the JSF's production schedule, Dempsey said. While the production rate may change, the Pentagon's dedication to seeing the program through has not. Dempsey said the department is "clearly" committed to purchasing the F-35. However the four-star general openly questioned whether the Pentagon could afford all three versions of the fighter in October. At the time, Dempsey told members of the House Armed Services Committee that buying all three variants would greatly increase pressure on an already stressed budget.
As political and economic pressure on the JSF program increases we will have to see which Dempsey shows up to that debate. Will it be the four-star general who said today he is clearly on board with the program. Or will it be the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who would not even mention the JSF by name to lawmakers in October.
http://defense.aol.com/2011/12/09/eu-crisis-will-clearly-hit-jsf-dempsey-says/
Boeing Makes A Play For JSF Partner Nations
By Carlo Munoz
Published: July 20, 2011
Washington: Boeing, trying to press its case and boost F-18 sales, said today that F-35 partner nations are searching for a plan B for the next-generation fighter, but are waiting until program's total costs top out before acting.
The nine F-35 countries are watching closely to see if costs will continue to grow past the $900 million increase announced this week by the F-35 program office, claims Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing's military aircraft division.
The nine F-35 partner nations are watching closely to see if costs will continue to grow past the $900 million increase announced this week by the F-35 program office, said Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing's military aircraft division.
"Where is it going to end? Is it going to end?" Chadwick said. "I think that will drive the decisions by the international customers."
The company has been pushing its F/A-18 Super Hornet hard to both F-35 international partners, and other countries recapitalizing their fighter fleet.
He said this week's announcement did not create a panic among F-35 partner nations Boeing has been in contact with, but those talks have not necessarily died down either
"They are biding their time...and then they will make a decision," he said.
The cost concerns on the F-35, along with the overall weakness in the U.S. economy, the international market will probably get more aggressive in looking for other options.
"I think they, like [us] are all waiting to see what is going to happen with this overall debt reduction," Chadwick said. "That, coupled with the status of the F-35 program...will determine the end state."
Once that end state hits, Boeing and their aircraft will be waiting with open arms.
"We are patient. We have time... and we will continue to compete where we can and see how this plays out," Chadwick said."At the end of the day, we will be just fine."
http://defense.aol.com/2011/07/20/boeing-makes-a-play-for-jsf-partner-nations/
In: EU Crisis Will 'Clearly' Hit JSF, Dempsey Says van 9 december wordt gereferreerd aan bovenstaand bericht.
Lockheed Martin Wins Multi-billion Defense Contracts - Update
(RTTNews.com) - U.S. Department of Defense announced that Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, a $4.01 billion fixed-price-incentive modification contract to manufacture and delivery 30 Low Rate Initial Production Lot V F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Aircraft. According to the defense department, 60% work will be performed in Clearwater, while 40% work will be done in Manassas, expecting the work to be complete by December 2012.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201112100106rttraderusequity_0002&title=lockheed-martin-wins-multi-billion-defense-contracts-update
Blijkbaar is er toch een behooerlijke vooruitgang in de prijsontwikkeling van de JSF. Lot V, 30 x JSF voor $ 4,01 miljard (133.66 mjn usd per unit = +/- € 87 mjn per unit)
Op het nvieau van Lot V kan zich de Klu (afhankelijk euro - dollar koers) 52 JSF veroorloven.
Om 68 te kunnen veroorloven zal de prijs nog met € 21 mjn per unit naar beneden moeten.
UPDATE:
Pentagon orders 30 more F-35s from Lockheed
By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 9, 2011 17:53:52 EST
Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $4 billion contract to produce 30 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the Pentagon announced Friday.
Related reading
Dempsey: DoD's F-35 buy may be stretched out (Dec. 9)
The fixed-price-incentive contract provides for 21 F-35A conventional take off and landing Lightning IIs for the Air Force, three F-35B short-take off and vertical landing aircraft for the Marines, and six F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.
.....
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/12/dn-pentagon-orders-30-more-f35s-from-lockheed-120911/
Herberekening KLu variant'
$ 2.65 voor 21 F35A = +/- € 1.723 euro/21 = € 82 mjn per unit.
Omgerekend voor de Klu: 55 F35A
Air Force inspecting F-22 oxygen systems
By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 9, 2011 14:24:16 EST
The Air Force is inspecting the emergency oxygen system on its F-22 Raptor air-superiority fighters.
Colloquially referred to as the "green apple" by pilots, the system is a self-contained supply of liquid oxygen mounted on the jet's ejection seat and is used in case there is a failure of the main life-support system. By necessity, it is separate from the aircraft's main oxygen systems, which have been under investigation for much of the year due to a string of airborne incidents where pilots have experienced symptoms resembling hypoxia.
.....
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/12/dn-air-force-inspecting-f22-oxygen-systems-120911/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/12/2011 | 09:24 uur
Lockheed Martin Wins Multi-billion Defense Contracts - Update
(RTTNews.com) - U.S. Department of Defense announced that Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, a $4.01 billion fixed-price-incentive modification contract to manufacture and delivery 30 Low Rate Initial Production Lot V F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Aircraft. According to the defense department, 60% work will be performed in Clearwater, while 40% work will be done in Manassas, expecting the work to be complete by December 2012.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201112100106rttraderusequity_0002&title=lockheed-martin-wins-multi-billion-defense-contracts-update
Blijkbaar is er toch een behooerlijke vooruitgang in de prijsontwikkeling van de JSF. Lot V, 30 x JSF voor $ 4,01 miljard (133.66 mjn usd per unit = +/- € 87 mjn per unit)
Op het nvieau van Lot V kan zich de Klu (afhankelijk euro - dollar koers) 52 JSF veroorloven.
Om 68 te kunnen veroorloven zal de prijs nog met € 21 mjn per unit naar beneden moeten.
Die € 87 miljoen euro per toestel is ook alleen maar het toestel !
Is dit inclusief motor ? .... in iedergeval geen onderhouds en ondersteuningskosten voor de komende 20 / 30 jaar gerekend.
Citaat van: Harald op 10/12/2011 | 10:16 uur
Die € 87 miljoen euro per toestel is ook alleen maar het toestel !
Is dit inclusief motor ? .... in iedergeval geen onderhouds en ondersteuningskosten voor de komende 20 / 30 jaar gerekend.
Uit nieuwe inzichten (reeds aangepast) blijk dat het genoemde contract is op gedeeld in 3 versiers. Uit de 30 bestelde JSF uit Lot V zijn er 21 voor de USAF voor 2.65 mjd dollar, omgerekend in euro's (met huidige koers) betekend dit € 82 mjn per A variant (volgens mij is dit inclusief motor)
Natuurlijk zitten hier de onderhouds en ondersteuningskosten niet in, maar als ik kijk naar het NL aanschafbudget van € 4.5 mjd, dan zitten deze kosten ook niet in dat planbudget.
Immers in de originele plangetallen (bij 85 x F35A) werd uitgegaan van: aanschafbudget + 10 miljard euro aan exploitatie kosten over de gehele levensduur.
Het lijkt, prijstechnisch, langzaam de goede kant op te gaan, maar wellicht ligt er nog een heels nest adders onder het gras.
Berichten overnemen van Defense News.com, Air Force Times etc. is enkel toegstaan cf navolgende voorwaarden:
1. De eerste 50 woorden;
2. De link naar het artikel.
De organisatie erachter, Gannet News Corp. let daar stringent op.
Vzke hier rekening mee te houden.
Lex
Algeheel beheerder
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/12/2011 | 09:24 uur
Lockheed Martin Wins Multi-billion Defense Contracts - Update
(RTTNews.com) - U.S. Department of Defense announced that Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, a $4.01 billion fixed-price-incentive modification contract to manufacture and delivery 30 Low Rate Initial Production Lot V F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Aircraft. According to the defense department, 60% work will be performed in Clearwater, while 40% work will be done in Manassas, expecting the work to be complete by December 2012. Blijkbaar is er toch een behoorlijke vooruitgang in de prijsontwikkeling van de JSF. Lot V, 30 x JSF voor $ 4,01 miljard (133.66 mjn usd per unit = +/- € 87 mjn per unit)
Op het nvieau van Lot V kan zich de Klu (afhankelijk euro - dollar koers) 52 JSF veroorloven.
Om 68 te kunnen veroorloven zal de prijs nog met € 21 mjn per unit naar beneden moeten.
UPDATE: Pentagon orders 30 more F-35s from Lockheed. Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $4 billion contract to produce 30 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the Pentagon announced Friday. Dempsey: DoD's F-35 buy may be stretched out (Dec. 9) The fixed-price-incentive contract provides for 21 F-35A conventional take off and landing Lightning IIs for the Air Force, three F-35B short-take off and vertical landing aircraft for the Marines, and six F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.
Herberekening KLu variant': $ 2.65 voor 21 F35A = +/- € 1.723 euro/21 = € 82 mjn per unit.
Omgerekend voor de Klu: 55 F35A
USD 2.644.270.340,00 / 21 = USD 125.917.635,00 per F-35A exclusief ontwikkelingskosten! Ontwikkelingskosten zijn zogenaamde 'sunk costs', of te wel kosten die per stuk wapensysteem niet meer ongedaan te maken zijn. Dus worden deze kosten nooit in de wapensysteem prijzen van het US DoD door berekent. Ze worden echter wel door berekent aan export klanten en reken dan op circa USD 20+ - 25 miljoen per F-35A. In de LRIP IV overeenkomst gaat het om de kisten exclusief motoren a USD 10 - 14 miljoen.
USD 125,9 miljoen / 60% = 209.862.725 systeem-prijs + ca. 25 miljoen + ca. 12 miljoen = USD 246,9 miljoen / 1,35 = EUR 182,86 miljoen x 19% BTW = EUR 217,6 miljoen. EUR 4.500 miljoen - EUR 100 miljoen voor de infra-structuur = EUR 4.400 miljoen / 217,6 = 20 F-35A LightningII's!
Citaat van: Poleme op 10/12/2011 | 15:43 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/12/2011 | 09:24 uur
Lockheed Martin Wins Multi-billion Defense Contracts - Update
(RTTNews.com) - U.S. Department of Defense announced that Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, a $4.01 billion fixed-price-incentive modification contract to manufacture and delivery 30 Low Rate Initial Production Lot V F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Aircraft. According to the defense department, 60% work will be performed in Clearwater, while 40% work will be done in Manassas, expecting the work to be complete by December 2012. Blijkbaar is er toch een behoorlijke vooruitgang in de prijsontwikkeling van de JSF. Lot V, 30 x JSF voor $ 4,01 miljard (133.66 mjn usd per unit = +/- € 87 mjn per unit)
Op het nvieau van Lot V kan zich de Klu (afhankelijk euro - dollar koers) 52 JSF veroorloven.
Om 68 te kunnen veroorloven zal de prijs nog met € 21 mjn per unit naar beneden moeten.
UPDATE: Pentagon orders 30 more F-35s from Lockheed. Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $4 billion contract to produce 30 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the Pentagon announced Friday. Dempsey: DoD's F-35 buy may be stretched out (Dec. 9) The fixed-price-incentive contract provides for 21 F-35A conventional take off and landing Lightning IIs for the Air Force, three F-35B short-take off and vertical landing aircraft for the Marines, and six F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.
Herberekening KLu variant': $ 2.65 voor 21 F35A = +/- € 1.723 euro/21 = € 82 mjn per unit.
Omgerekend voor de Klu: 55 F35A
USD 2.644.270.340,00 / 21 = USD 125.917.635,00 per F-35A exclusief ontwikkelingskosten! Ontwikkelingskosten zijn zogenaamde 'sunk costs', of te wel kosten die per stuk wapensysteem niet meer ongedaan te maken zijn. Dus worden deze kosten nooit in de wapensysteem prijzen van het US DoD door berekent. Ze worden echter wel door berekent aan export klanten en reken dan op circa USD 20+ - 25 miljoen per F-35A. In de LRIP IV overeenkomst gaat het om de kisten exclusief motoren a USD 10 - 14 miljoen.
USD 125,9 miljoen / 60% = 209.862.725 systeem-prijs + ca. 25 miljoen + ca. 12 miljoen = USD 246,9 miljoen / 1,35 = EUR 182,86 miljoen x 19% BTW = EUR 217,6 miljoen. EUR 4.500 miljoen - EUR 100 miljoen voor de infra-structuur = EUR 4.400 miljoen / 217,6 = 20 F-35A LightningII's!
>:( Heeft iemand al met Zweden gebeld.... Dan toch maar een leuke deal (samen met Brazilië en Denemarken) met de Vikingen.
Citaat van: dudge op 10/12/2011 | 17:10 uur
Wat denk je zelf :angel:
20 zou wel een heel treurig getal zijn, maar is wel waarschijnlijk dus.
50+ zou ik nog een acceptabel aantal vinden, +/- 20 JSF is zelfmoord voor de Klu in zijn huidige vorm. Als dit werkelijk de uitkomst van van Poleme zijn berekening is dan ga ik ook voor zijn voorkeurslijstje.
De Klu boys (and girls) kunnen wat mij betreft dan hun LOI cursus Zweeds of Frans gaan bestellen.
Want ergens geloof ik niet, hoe zou het toch komen, dat de politiek bereidt is om het aanschafbudget te verdrievoudigen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/12/2011 | 17:42 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 10/12/2011 | 17:10 uur
Wat denk je zelf :angel:
20 zou wel een heel treurig getal zijn, maar is wel waarschijnlijk dus.
50+ zou ik nog een acceptabel aantal vinden, +/- 20 JSF is zelfmoord voor de Klu in zijn huidige vorm. Als dit werkelijk de uitkomst van van Poleme zijn berekening is dan ga ik ook voor zijn voorkeurslijstje.
De Klu boys (and girls) kunnen wat mij betreft dan hun LOI cursus Zweeds of Frans gaan bestellen.
Want ergens geloof ik niet, hoe zou het toch komen, dat de politiek bereidt is om het aanschafbudget te verdrievoudigen.
In dit kader ben ik wel erg nieuwsgierig of tijdens het bezoek van Hans Hillen aan Bazilië een eventuele samenwerking omtrend de Gripen NG een bespreekbaar onderwerp is geweest.
Als je er over nadenkt: het is een mooie en win-win situatie voor zowel Nederland als Brazilië. ;D
Aerospace ind purchases likely to be worth USD 35 billion
PTI | 04:12 PM,Dec 11,2011
Hyderabad, Dec 11(PTI)Indian aerospace industry is likely to purchase equipment worth USD 35 billion over the next ten years including aircraft, a top official said. Vivek Rae, Director General (Acquisitions) under the Defence Ministry said the Indian companies will get at least USD 10 billion worth of defence contracts under 'offset clause' that mandates any foreign company which secures Indian defence contract should outsource 30 per cent of the contract to Indian firms. "Indian aerospace industry will be making purchases worth USD 35 billion over the next ten years. Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft purchase itself will be about USD 15 billion," Rae told PTI on the sidelines of a seminar at Indian School of Business. The Defence Ministry has short-listed France's Dassault Aviation SA's Rafale and EADS' Eurofighter Typhoon for supply of MMRCA in April. Commercial bids from the two short-listed vendors were opened on November 4, marking the culmination of almost decade-long hunt for India's new mainline fighter. He said the Government had already signed Rs 18000 crore ((USD 3.6 billion) worth of defence contracts and the Aerospace contracts will be worth around Rs 14,000 crore. These contracts are expected to be executed in the next 6-7 years, Ray added.
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/aerospace-ind-purchases-likely-to-be-worth-usd-35-billion/924373.html
Citaat van: dudge op 10/12/2011 | 17:10 uur
Wat denk je zelf :angel:
20 zou wel een heel treurig getal zijn, maar is wel waarschijnlijk dus.
Hmmm... ik zie de berekening maar dit geloof ik domweg gewoon niet. 30-35 (ook triest weinig), maar 20? Nope. Ergens klopt er dan in de cijfers of verwachtingen iets niet m.i.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 11/12/2011 | 16:41 uur
Aerospace ind purchases likely to be worth USD 35 billion
PTI | 04:12 PM,Dec 11,2011
Vivek Rae, Director General (Acquisitions) under the Defence Ministry:
"Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft purchase itself will be about USD 15 billion"
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/aerospace-ind-purchases-likely-to-be-worth-usd-35-billion/924373.html
$ 15 mjd/126 = $ 119 mjn per kist.
Nu de vraag wie dat het dichtst benaderd, Wikipedia geeft hier niet echt een duidelijk verschil
Citaat van: Mourning op 11/12/2011 | 16:47 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 10/12/2011 | 17:10 uur
Wat denk je zelf :angel:
20 zou wel een heel treurig getal zijn, maar is wel waarschijnlijk dus.
Hmmm... ik zie de berekening maar dit geloof ik domweg gewoon niet. 30-35 (ook triest weinig), maar 20? Nope. Ergens klopt er dan in de cijfers of verwachtingen niet m.i.q
Betaalt Nederland wel "ontwikkelingskosten" bij daadwerkelijke aanschaf?
We zijn toch immers (mede ontwikkelings)partner.
Citaat van: Mourning op 11/12/2011 | 16:47 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 10/12/2011 | 17:10 uur
Wat denk je zelf :angel:
20 zou wel een heel treurig getal zijn, maar is wel waarschijnlijk dus.
Hmmm... ik zie de berekening maar dit geloof ik domweg gewoon niet. 30-35 (ook triest weinig), maar 20? Nope. Ergens klopt er dan in de cijfers of verwachtingen iets niet m.i.
Hmmm, ik doe niet aan geloven of niet geloven. Ik reken en analyseer liever. Feit is dat volgens de juridisch bindende Request For Information F-35A LightningII, gedaan door de Noorse regering in april 2008. De F-35A systeem prijs, dus inclusief opleidingen, gereedschappen, reserve-onderdelen etcetera, zou bij aflevering tussen 2016 - 2020 komen op USD 165 - 235 miljoen. Deskundigen op het gebied van jachtvliegtuig bouw gaan er nu van uit dat deze systeem prijs gemakkelijk kan stijgen tot USD 250 miljoen en meer!
De KLu mag dan blij zijn met 20 F-35A LightningII's. Want, als het JSF project nog meer vertraging gerekend in jaren gaat oplopen. En de F-35B en F-35C worden geannuleerd + een sterk gereduceerd order aantal voor de F-35A. Dan kan er een reeele situatie ontstaan, waarbij de KLu de F-16 niet eens kan vervangen. En moeten we het voortaan zonder jachtvliegtuigen stellen!
Nederland krijgt per geexporteerde F-35 USD 200.000 aan royalties voor haar (kleine) bijdrage aan de JSF ontwikkeling. Worden de F-35's echter onder Foreign Military Sales voorwaarden van het State Department (BuZa) geexporteerd. Dan wordt aan de betreffende klant geen ontwikkelingskosten doorberekend. In dit soort gevallen krijgt Nederland dus ook geen royalties. Op aan de KLu geleverde F-35A's worden wel ontwikkelingskosten doorberekend minus een (kleine) korting voor de Nederlandse bijdrage aan het System Development & Demonstration JSF.
Citaat van: Poleme op 11/12/2011 | 18:29 uur
[De KLu mag dan blij zijn met 20 F-35A LightningII's. Want, als het JSF project nog meer vertraging gerekend in jaren gaat oplopen. En de F-35B en F-35C worden geannuleerd + een sterk gereduceerd order aantal voor de F-35A. Dan kan er een reeele situatie ontstaan, waarbij de KLu de F-16 niet eens kan vervangen. En moeten we het voortaan zonder jachtvliegtuigen stellen!
De kans is reëel dat één of 2 versies geanuleerd gaan worden of minimaal een dratische terugval in het aantal van de 3 versies. Voor het gemak (of is dit naief) ga ik er vanuit dat ook de Klu, de industrie en de vaderlandse politiek dit ziet aankomen. (al is het is nog niet zo ver)
Persoonlijk kan ik me nauwelijk voorstellen dat de Klu genoegen zal nemen met +/- 20 JSF's, dan kan ook meteen een hangslot op de vliegbasis Leeuwarden, en tijdig eieren voor haar geld zal kiezen en haar ogen zal richten op het noorden dan wel zuiden.
Als ik de (internationale) media een beetje volg, dan vind ik het ruim tijd voor plan B (als plan A helemaal de mist in gaat)
Citaat van: dudge op 11/12/2011 | 19:31 uur
tunnelvisie, iedereen ziet het, al in 2006 ofzo, maar wie durft het hoofd boven het maaiveld uit te steken en het heilige huis/geloof aan te vallen?
Misschien wordt de beslissing voor veel landen wel in de VS genomen als men besluit het aantal dramatisch te reduceren en/of één of meerdere varianten te annuleren waarbij de aanschaf simpelweg te kostbaar wordt. (vergelijkbaar of duurder dan de F22)
Ik kan me voorstellen dat Boeing, Saab, EADS en Dessault nauwelijks kunnen wachten op de uitkomst van de Amerikaanse bezuinigingen en zich als ware aasgieren zullen storten op de markt.
De (eventuele) gedeeltelijke ondergang van de JSF zal de reddende engel blijken te zijn voor diverse fabrikanten.
In de VS lijkt het steeds meer voor de hand te liggen dat men gedwongen is om te kiezen voor een high en- low end mix.
Voor de USAF: (H) F22A/F35A (L) F15C-E/F16C block 40+
Voor de USN: F18E/X47B
Voor de USMC: F18E
Maar misschien wordt de soep niet zo heet gegeten.
Voor de liefhebbers, een uitgebreid en interessant interview met Charles Edelstenne, PDG (algemeen directeur) de Dassault Aviation.
Het is natuurlijk volledig in het Frans maar met Google Tanslate kom je een heel eind.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2011/12/11/04015-20111211ARTFIG00186-rafale-pas-de-cadeau-fait-par-l-etat-a-dassault-aviation.php
IDFAF continues to upgrade older F-16s as delivery of the F- 35 might be delayed
December 12, 2011 (by Lieven Dewitte) - Amid growing concern that delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might be delayed, the Israel Air Force is further moving forward with a new upgrade program for its older F-16 fighter jets.
The decision to begin the upgrades on the F-16 C/D models – called "Barak" in the IAF – began in 2010 with the installation of new avionics and a new mission-debriefing system.
In an effort to increase the aircraft's lifespan, the IAF has now decided to also upgrade the F- 16s flight-control system (FCS). Successful test were performed using the FCS from the F-16I and now a decision was made to equip all F-16C/Ds with it.
Pilots of the Barak aircraft will also be equipped with Elbit's wide-angle conventional heads-up displays (WAC HUD) and sight helmet system, which enables pilots to aim their weapons simply by looking at their targets.
Elbit developed a new design that uses legacy optics but replaces the outmoded chassis, cathode ray tube and associated drive control electronics. The new display design reduces total part count and power consumption, the company said.
The Barak will also be fitted with new high-resolution screens aimed at further increasing the pilots' situational awareness.
The upgrades come amid the possibility the delivery of the F- 35 will be delayed.
In 2010, the Defense Ministry signed a $2.75 billion contract for its first squadron of 20 F-35s, which are supposed to begin arriving in 2015 with delivery completion in 2016. Pilots are to undergo training with the U.S. Air Force starting in 2014.
IAF commander Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan recently held a number of discussions within the force regarding reports the Pentagon was considering slowing down the development of the F-35 after a number of cracks were discovered on some of the aircraft.
"I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here, until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right," Pentagon F-35 program director V.-Adm. David Venlet said last week.
The Defense Ministry has in the past claimed that Israeli procurement plans will not be affected by delays to the US program, but senior IDF officers said recently that additional delays could lead the IAF to consider purchasing new F-15s or F-16s to bridge the gap between now and when the aircraft arrives if it is pushed back later than 2017.
The Israeli Air Force paid close attention when Boeing launched the F-15SE in July 2010. The IDF/AF currently operates 25 customized F-15I Ra'am aircraft, and 101 F-16I Sufa jets that form its strategic spearhead and would be the squadrons deployed in any strike against Iran.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4475.html
Citaat van: Harald op 12/12/2011 | 14:04 uur
IDFAF continues to upgrade older F-16s as delivery of the F- 35 might be delayed
The Israeli Air Force paid close attention when Boeing launched the F-15SE in July 2010. The IDF/AF currently operates 25 customized F-15I Ra'am aircraft, and 101 F-16I Sufa jets that form its strategic spearhead and would be the squadrons deployed in any strike against Iran.[/i]
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4475.html
En zo lijkt de markt van de JSF vrijwel elke dag kleiner te worden. Ik heb zo het vermoeden dat de Israeli nog wel één of meer F15SE sqn zal aanschaffen als gap filler (ten koste van de gewenste 75 F35A's)
Japanese F-35 buy would be 'symbolic' boost to fighter jet program: analyst
Posted on Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 12:04 pm by Colin Horgan
Japan is set to commit to purchasing a number of F-35 fighter jets as early as the end of this week.
The anticipated move could see Japan acquire between 40 and 60 airplanes by Friday, according to Kyodo News. However, iPolitics has learned the commitment could happen as early as Tuesday morning.
Whenever it does occur, the Japanese commitment will be a boost to the program says Philippe Lagassé, a defence analyst and University of Ottawa public and international affairs professor.
"It's an injection of confidence in the process and the plane, which at this point seems to be lacking or seems to be falling to some degree," Lagassé said.
Earlier Monday, the Jerusalem Post reported the Israeli Air Force is now upgrading its older F-16 fighters out of concerns over delays in the Joint Strike Fighter production schedule. Israel is due to receive 20 F-35s in 2017.
That news is only the latest in a series of setbacks for the program, both internationally and in the U.S., where Congress has repeatedly called the JSF costing into question.
Last week, U.S. Vice Adm. David Venlet suggested that production of the F-35 should be slowed after fatigue tests revealed several "hot spots" that could escalate future costs.
The overall cost of each aircraft has been a sore point for the program so far, and something opposition parties in Canada have seized on in demanding that a new process is undertaken to choose a plane. But while the final cost per unit remains an unknown at this point, theoretically, the more nations that purchase the F-35, the lower it will be.
"The economies of scale really depend on the number of aircraft that the U.S. ends up buying, but we can't overlook either the number of those smaller allies or the smaller orders that would be coming," says Lagassé.
Another committed partner is also a boost for industry confidence. As there is no mandatory industrial regional benefit [IRB] element to the JSF program, the promise of a potentially larger pool of consumers for F-35 parts is good news.
"It's not simply the price of the plane. You also want to know that you can end up selling the parts and taking on contracts for a wide number of aircraft," Lagassé says. "Otherwise your IRB benefits that you will be missing from that contract would actually be fairly significant."
In the end, while Japan's commitment is good news for the troubled F-35 program, much still rests on both the quality of the final product and the main purchaser, the U.S. and whether it scales back the program and to what degree.
Japan's expected commitment is "more of a symbolic thing," says Lagassé.
"The degree to which you can have different allies and players declaring themselves supportive of the aircraft... is a good sign for Lockheed," says Lagassé, though he cautioned that in the long term it might not mean anything if the plane isn't up to par.
"In the end, if the aircraft is overpriced and if it does continue to suffer delays, then that's a major problem," he said.
© 2011 iPolitics Inc.
Japan poised to decide on fighter jets deal
By Carola Hoyos, Defence Correspondent
Japan is poised to decide which new fighter jets will defend its borders for the next generation, in the most highly anticipated deal of a miserable year for military aircraft producers.
The decision, likely before the end of the year, will define whether Tokyo continues its almost exclusive technical military partnership with the US or turns to Europe for major front line weapons for the first time since the second world war.
Three jet fighters are vying for the contract. These are Eurofighter's Typhoon, made by a consortium of European defence companies; the F-35, made by Lockheed Martin, the US defence contractor, BAE Systems of the UK and others; and the F/A-18 Super Hornet, manufactured by Boeing, the US aerospace and defence company.
The initial deal for about 42 aircraft would be worth as much as $6bn, while the contract to support and service the planes for their 30 to 40-year life would be even more lucrative.
"These kinds of sales don't happen very often – once every generation. It would be massive for us to achieve a sale into Japan and would support our business plan going forward," said BAE's Mark Parkinson, who is in charge of selling Typhoon to Japan.
BAE, Europe's biggest defence contractor, has for the past seven years spent millions of dollars and thousands of manhours preparing for the Japanese sale.
The Typhoon has several things going for it, not least that it proved its value in Libya earlier this year. It is a specialist in deploying long-range missiles, is ready to go and has a price tag well short of the F-35, its fiercest competitor. Perhaps most importantly, the Eurofighter and the European governments behind it are willing to share Typhoon's technology and collaborate in building the jets in Japan.
Robert Hewson, analyst at IHS Jane's, calls the Typhoon the outsider for whom a win would be spectacular. "Japan really wants the F-35," he says. "If the F-35 gets dismissed in favour of the Super Hornet or the Typhoon, it will be a tremendous blow for Lockheed Martin – a punch in the stomach – and people will begin to ask what the future of the plane actually is."
The F-35 is the most modern fighter on offer and its sleek design gives it radar-evading capabilities. Japan has historically tended to buy the newest technology, increasing its chances in many observers' eyes.
But this time could be different because Japan is in a hurry. Much of its fleet of fighter jets is getting old in terms of technology, and 18 of the country's F-2 jets were damaged in the March tsunami. The 2016 deadline could well be a stretch for the F-35, which has suffered cost overruns and delays, and whose technology, though impressive, is expensive and largely untested.
"The programme is nowhere near as ready as it should be and the F-35 is in real trouble in terms of technical hitches and shrinking budgets. You'd be a brave man to sign up for the F-35 today because it has fallen so short of its earlier promises," says Mr Hewson.
The Super Hornet is the oldest and least expensive in the group. It has the significant advantage of being better tested and more ready than its competitors, but the disadvantage of being viewed as having yesterday's technology that could soon be overtaken by Russia and China.
Mr Hewson suggests that the Typhoon or the Super Hornet might get an interim deal to supply some airplanes to Japan, with Tokyo making a commitment to buying the F-35 later. Another possibility is that Japan orders more F-2 jets from Mitsubishi while it waits for the F-35.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.
Finance & Stock Market News
BRIEF-Japan likely to pick F-35 as next mainstay fighter jet-NIKKEI
Mon, 12th Dec 2011 17:29
Dec 13 (Reuters) - NIKKEI:
* Japan likely to pick f-35 as next mainstay fighter jet-nikke
* Japanese government to hold security council meeting on Friday to select
mainstay fighter jet for air self-defense force-nikkei
* Lockheed Martin Corp's f-35 lightning II seen as the most likely choice-nikkei
* Selection to be made from 3 models - the f-35, Boeing co's f/a-18 super
hornet and BAE Systems plc's eurofighter typhoon-nikkei
* Once the selection is made, Japanese government plans to deploy four new jets
in fiscal 2016-nikkei
* Number of jets expected to rise eventually to between 40 and 50-nikkei
* Total cost, including purchasing, maintenance and repairs, is estimated to
come to about JPY 1 trillion - nikkei
* Japanese government seeks JPY 55.1 billion for the four jets in the fiscal
2012 budget - nikkei
http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=hptsznzajqo8v4j&ArticleHeadline=BRIEFJapan_likely_to_pick_F35_as_next_mainstay_fighter_jetNIKKEI
1 Japanse yen = 0,00972608959 euro's
JPY 1 trillion = ruim 9,7 mjd euro's
En laat NL voor een redelijk gelijk aantal 4,5 mjd euro gereserveerd hebben, nu is mijn wiskunde een beetje roestig maar deze vergelijking gaat boven mijn pet. ;D
En niet te vergeten, tegen beter weten in hoop ik op een Europese verrassing.
Headed for a JSF tailspinRobert Gottliebsen
Published 10:36 AM, 13 Dec 2011 Last update 10:05 AM, 13 Dec 2011
Julia Gillard's new cabinet will face a problem no cabinet in Australia has ever faced since the decline of the British Empire in Asia.
If US press reports are right then finally the cabinet will have to face up to the fact that the Joint Strike Fighter, on which Australia's future air defence is based, is a complete disaster. But to discover this, cabinet will have to get its hands on a document that is being selectively leaked to the US press, which appears to blow the lid on the disaster.
In October, tired of all the spin that was coming out of the JSF developer Lockheed Martin, the US government appointed top technical people to have a quick look at where the project was at. They included three very experienced senior engineers (at deputy assistant secretary level in the Pentagon) and two other technical experts. These people had the knowledge and the wisdom to see past the spin used to mask the problems with the JSF.
Their report has been marked 'for US only' but is being leaked in the US press. The first leaks were very favourable and stated that no fundamental design risks with the JSF were identified that were sufficient to preclude further production. This sent the pro-JSF spin machine into overdrive.
But now the detail of the report is seeping out, and if the leaks are half right our worst fears about the project are true.
One report indicates that the expert panel appears to be concerned that there are over 700 JSF change requests at the kick-off stage, another 600-plus at the engineering stage and 500 in manufacturing. Remember that Lockheed has actually made aircraft and is flight testing them so these changes are being made at the same time as manufacturing and testing. The changes will take an average of two years each to fix. Now of course they will be carried out 'concurrently', but this will take a long time and will be incredibly expensive.
It appears that the experts picked holes in the development of most of the aircraft's major systems and the aircraft itself, and pointed out that some key systems of concern are still in the very early stages of testing. Further problems are highly likely. They are concerned about fatigue issues.
Remember that the Russians and Chinese have already developed a superior aircraft, so even if we wait until the next decade for the problems to be fixed, the aircraft will never be competitive.
It's vital that every member of the new Australian cabinet read this report, although the US may be reluctant to show it to us.
It comes after the statement by Vice Admiral David Venlet, who is in charge of the JSF program, virtually admitting that the original concept of the program was flawed (Flying into a defence disaster, December 6).
The Howard government, acting on flawed advice from the JSF developer on which our defence people relied, went for the JSF rather than pressing the US much harder for the F22. There were enormous incentives for Australian manufacturing in the JSF. Some 5,000 to 10,000 Australians are working on the project.
Once the Americans link the Venlet statement with the latest reports, the JSF plug will be closer to being pulled. Australia needs to work hard to convince the US to convert the development breakthroughs and wherewithal put together to manufacture the JSF to be used in building more advanced F-22 Raptors.
Then we will retain an air defence capability. The greatest problem is that the defence chiefs, let alone our politicians, are reluctant to admit errors.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Gillard-defence-JSF-Joint-Strike-Fighter-cabinet-pd20111213-PGV8M?opendocument&src=rss
Japan chooses F-35 as mainstay fighter jet: Reports
AFP | Dec 13, 2011, 10.43AM IST
TOKYO: Japan has chosen the US-made F-35 stealth jet as its next-generation mainstay fighter in a multi-billion dollar deal, reports said on Tuesday.
The defence ministry picked the jet made by Lockheed Martin to replace its ageing fleet of F-4 jets over two rivals, the Boeing-made F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Yomiuri Shimbun said.
Japan's biggest daily said the defence ministry had "agreed in principle" to select the F-35, with a formal announcement expected Friday at the Security Council of Japan, chaired by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.
Kyodo News cited unnamed government sources as saying the ministry had decided to buy 40 F-35 fighters, while the Nikkei business daily said only that the jet remained a "prime candidate".
Earlier reports said Japan could buy as many as 50 new jets, equipped with stealth technology, with a price tag of more than $6 billion.
A defence ministry spokesman on Tuesday declined to confirm the reports, saying: "We are still trying to do our best to make a final decision by the end of this year."
And Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura denied the reports that a final decision had been made, Dow Jones Newswires said.
The F-35, the most expensive weapons programme in Pentagon history, has been plagued by cost overruns and technical delays.
The jet, co-developed with British defence giant BAE Systems, is the most expensive among the three candidates, with a price tag estimated at $113 million per aircraft.
Japan initially aimed to acquire the F-22 stealth fighter to renew its fleet, but US law prohibits exports of the jet with the United States having said it would halt production of the model.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Japan-chooses-F-35-as-mainstay-fighter-jet-Reports/articleshow/11091164.cms
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/12/2011 | 20:57 uur
* Number of jets expected to rise eventually to between 40 and 50-nikkei
* Total cost, including purchasing, maintenance and repairs, is estimated to come to about JPY 1 trillion - nikkei
1 Japanse yen = 0,00972608959 euro's
JPY 1 trillion = ruim 9,7 mjd euro's
Een makkelijk rekensommetje :
Japan : 50 toestellen = 1 trillion JPY (= € 9,7 miljard Euro)
Nederland : budget = 4,4 miljard en hiervoor kun je dus 22 toestellen aanschaffen (a € 194 miljoen per stuk)
22 F-35 en het geld is op :crazy:
Pentagon Contract Announcement
(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued December 9, 2011)
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $4,011,919,310 fixed-price-incentive (firm target) (FPIF) modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-10-C-0002).
This modification provides for the manufacture and delivery of 30 Low Rate Initial Production Lot V F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Aircraft for the U.S. Air Force (21 Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft); the U.S. Navy (6 Carrier Variant (CV) aircraft) and the U.S. Marine Corps (3 Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft).
In addition, this modification provides for associated ancillary mission equipment and flight test instrumentation for those aircraft, and flight test instrumentation for the United Kingdom.
All effort will be contracted for on a FPIF basis, with the exception of work scope for the incorporation of certain specified concurrency changes that will be contracted for on a cost-sharing/no-fee basis.
Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (67 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (14 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (9 percent); Orlando, Fla. (4 percent); Nashua, N.H. (3 percent); and Baltimore, Md. (3 percent), and is expected to be completed in January 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Air Force ($2,644,270,340; 65.9 percent); the U.S. Navy ($937,374,286; 23.34 percent); the U.S. Marine Corps ($426,190,013; 10.6 percent); and the United Kingdom ($4,084,671; 0.1 percent).
The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: A straightforward division using the above figures sets the average unit cost of a LRIP 5 aircraft at $133.7 million.
However, on July 6, 2010 Lockheed was awarded a $522.2 million contract for LRIP 5 long-lead items, which adds another $12.4 million per aircraft (because it was awarded when LRIP5 was due to comprise 42 aircraft).
But these figures exclude the cost of the engine, which is a useful addition to a fighter aircraft. The contract for the LRIP 5 engines has not been awarded yet, but the May 13, 2011 contract awarded for LRIP 4 engines was worth $910.15 million for 67 engines, which works out to an average of $13.6 million each.
Consequently, the cost of each LRIP 5 aircraft can be estimated at $133.7m + $12.4m + $13.6m, or about $159.7 million per aircraft.
And this amount does not include the cost of the modifications to bring existing aircraft up to scratch by embodying modifications and upgrades shown to be necessary by the flight test program.
It will be interesting to see what spin Lockheed will put on these figures.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/131154/f_35-unit-cost-nears-%24160m-as-lockheed-wins-%244bn-for-lrip-5-lot.html
Citaat van: Harald op 13/12/2011 | 08:24 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/12/2011 | 20:57 uur
* Number of jets expected to rise eventually to between 40 and 50-nikkei
* Total cost, including purchasing, maintenance and repairs, is estimated to come to about JPY 1 trillion - nikkei
1 Japanse yen = 0,00972608959 euro's
JPY 1 trillion = ruim 9,7 mjd euro's
Een makkelijk rekensommetje :
Japan : 50 toestellen = 1 trillion JPY (= € 9,7 miljard Euro)
Nederland : budget = 4,4 miljard en hiervoor kun je dus 22 toestellen aanschaffen (a € 194 miljoen per stuk)
22 F-35 en het geld is op :crazy:
Volgens de berichten van vandaag worden het 40 JSF's. Als we het bedrag van 9.7 mjd euro nog even laten staan dan wordt dit:
242,5 mjn euro per stuk. Met dit getal levert dit wel 18 kisten voor de Klu (krijgt Poleme toch gelijk)... maar laten we de definitieve getallen even afwachten.
Het is een lagwekkende vergelijking... even een remainder:
Saab wil 85 Gripens NG leveren voor een vast bedrag van bijna 4,8 miljard euro, met daarnaast nog eens 4,8 miljard euro voor de levensduurkosten voor dertig jaar.
Wat zou ik kiezen....
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 08:56 uur
Saab wil 85 Gripens NG leveren voor een vast bedrag van bijna 4,8 miljard euro, met daarnaast nog eens 4,8 miljard euro voor de levensduurkosten voor dertig jaar.
Wat zou ik kiezen....
Ja maar, ja maar, Nederland wilt toch in de Champions league mee doen met de KLU!?! Dan heb je aan een elftal plus reserves toch genoeg? :sick:
De enige geruststelling is dat er dan snel ook drones moeten komen om de Hollandse gatenkaas wat te vullen. Alhoewel we in Iran al zien dat onbemand ook wel eens grote problemen kan opleveren...
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 13/12/2011 | 09:42 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 08:56 uur
Saab wil 85 Gripens NG leveren voor een vast bedrag van bijna 4,8 miljard euro, met daarnaast nog eens 4,8 miljard euro voor de levensduurkosten voor dertig jaar.
Wat zou ik kiezen....
Ja maar, ja maar, Nederland wilt toch in de Champions league mee doen met de KLU!?! Dan heb je aan een elftal plus reserves toch genoeg? :sick:
De enige geruststelling is dat er dan snel ook drones moeten komen om de Hollandse gatenkaas wat te vullen. Alhoewel we in Iran al zien dat onbemand ook wel eens grote problemen kan opleveren...
Ja maar.... dan verdubbelen of verdriedubbelen we toch simpel weg het defensiebudget.... dan hoor je mij niet meer piepen (zoalang het dan maar niet ten koste gaat van andere defensie onderdelen).
Keuzes, keuzes, keuzes ;D
Als het 18 toestellen worden is dit veel te weinig...men moet ook nog eens rekening houden met het feit dat volgens mij maar in de praktijk een krappe 50% inzetbaar zal zijn, dat is al 9 toestellen en er zullen er van de overige 9 minimaal 6 in de VS staan voor training.
Dan kom ik op een beschikbaar aantal van 3 operationele kisten.....waarvan er 2 voor de QRF zijn ..om die vervelende Russische bommenwerpers te onderscheppen.
Rekensom ...van de 18 toestellen blijft er welgeteld ...EEN JSF over om flexibel in te zetten..EEN.....
Ik zal ook kijkend naar Jurrien's voorbeeld voor de Gripen gaan..95 kisten voor de helft 4.8 miljard eurie...wat me ook aanstaat is
dat de Gripen vanaf snelwegen kan opstijgen, want in een toekomstige oorlog zullen vliegvelden toch zo zijn uitgeschakeld door raketten, en dan heb je meer aan kleine groepjes Gripens die vanaf kleine verschillende landingsbanen zoals snelwegen kunnen opstijgen.
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 13/12/2011 | 10:10 uur
... de Gripen vanaf snelwegen kan opstijgen, want in een toekomstige oorlog zullen vliegvelden toch zo zijn uitgeschakeld door raketten, en dan heb je meer aan kleine groepjes Gripens die vanaf kleine verschillende landingsbanen zoals snelwegen kunnen opstijgen.
Daarvoor moet je weer aanpassingen verrichten aan het autowegennet.
In Duitsland en Zwitserland hadden ze stukken (auto-)snelweg die hiervoor waren aangepast maar die zijn nu ook geschiedenis.
Hoe het in Zweden gesteld is weet ik niet.
Maak je echter geen zorgen. In het "Bastion" Europese Unie komt er nooit meer oorlog. :angel:
Citaat van: dudge op 13/12/2011 | 11:23 uur
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 13/12/2011 | 10:10 uur
Ik zal ook kijkend naar Jurrien's voorbeeld voor de Gripen gaan..95 kisten voor de helft 4.8 miljard eurie...wat me ook aanstaat is
dat de Gripen vanaf snelwegen kan opstijgen, want in een toekomstige oorlog zullen vliegvelden toch zo zijn uitgeschakeld door raketten, en dan heb je meer aan kleine groepjes Gripens die vanaf kleine verschillende landingsbanen zoals snelwegen kunnen opstijgen.
Niet alleen als de eigen vliegvelden die uitgeschkeld worden, maar ook als je expeditionair optreed, dat je minder nodig hebt. Een landingsbaan voor een Grippen kan op meer plekken en sneller aangelegd worden dan een voor een F16. Het kwam ook al van pas tijdens de Libie operatie, toen de Gripens gewoon vanaf de taxibaan de lucht in konden. Heel ideaal toestel.
Zeker ideaal.
Het gevaar schuild natuurlijk weer eens in de politiek.
Stel:
NL schaft de Gripen aan, dan begint de (linkse)politiek weer te brullen dat ook dit allemaal te duur is en omdat we volgens deze zelfde politiek met minder JSF konden, dan kunnen we volgens deze zelfde gijtenwollen wereldverbeteraars ook met minder Gripens.
Voordat je het weet gaat het plangetal van 85 naar 68 (het zullen er immers nooit meer dan 68 worden) en worden er maar 48 aangeschaft.
Tijd vor een goed plan, waarbij het huidige kabinet "concessies" doet aan de gehele kamer onder voorwaarden dat er snel een krabbel wordt gezet onder een kontract voor minimaal 68 Gripens NG.
Citaat van: dudge op 13/12/2011 | 11:50 uur
Mwa, zelfs met 68 Gripens zou ik blij zijn. Dan heb je maar iets, en dan kunnen er later altijd nog een aantal bijbesteld worden. Op dit moment is het echter wishful thinking, nieuwe bezuinigingen dreigen, en dan een miljardenaankoop doen, zelfs al ben je een stuk goedkoper uit dan met de F35, is erg moeilijk. Daarbij betekend het verlaten van de F35 ook het nemen van een verlies, wat op dit moment ook niemand wil.
Ook waar, mede gzien het feit dat wij sinds vandaag weer officieel in een recessie beland zijn. Ik denk dat we blij mogen zijn dat de definitieve beslissing pas in 2015 genomen wordt (tenzij het kabinet eerder valt)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 11:54 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 13/12/2011 | 11:50 uur
Mwa, zelfs met 68 Gripens zou ik blij zijn. Dan heb je maar iets, en dan kunnen er later altijd nog een aantal bijbesteld worden. Op dit moment is het echter wishful thinking, nieuwe bezuinigingen dreigen, en dan een miljardenaankoop doen, zelfs al ben je een stuk goedkoper uit dan met de F35, is erg moeilijk. Daarbij betekend het verlaten van de F35 ook het nemen van een verlies, wat op dit moment ook niemand wil.
Ook waar, mede gzien het feit dat wij sinds vandaag weer officieel in een recessie beland zijn. Ik denk dat we blij mogen zijn dat de definitieve beslissing pas in 2015 genomen wordt (tenzij het kabinet eerder valt)
Ik vindt 2015 eigenlijk veel te laat, beter zo snel mogelijk beslissen want die dingen moeten ook nog gebouwd worden...maar volgens mij komt volgend jaar al het eerste test exemplaar van de JSF hier ter beschikking van de Klu...ik begrijp de Klu ook niet zo..die willen perse de JSF maar wat is je Klu nog dan met maar een krappe 18 toestellen ? lijkt me dat dan ook de Klu met 50% kan worden ingekrompen op personeels gebied.
En hier nog wat verontrustende cijfers uit Noorwegen:
52 vliegtuigen voor voor +/- 26 mjd euro gedurende een periode van 30 jaar = aanschaf en exploitatie voor € 500 mjn per kist!! (en de prijs gaat wellicht nog omhoog)
Norway officials as stealthy as F-35
Lockheed Martin's F-35 is at the centre of a new row after Parliament was deliberately misled over true costs, reports say.
On the money?
The aircraft are to replace Norway's more than 30-year-old fleet of F-16s. Over 29 planes are hangared for maintenance, modernisation, or rebuilds on a rolling basis, costing the taxpayer billions of kroner.
Norway has already agreed to pay 4.8 million for four F-35 trainers, scheduled for delivery in 2016. This is despite fears of spiralling costs, Norwegian military cutbacks, and slashed US spending. The planes are also reported to be excessively noisy, and suffer from communications problems north of the Arctic Circle.
In further troubles, it now seems the final bill for Norway's some 50 planes is likely to be about 235 billion kroner (USD 40 billion), 90 billion kroner dearer over 30 years than previously thought.
Deputy Minister of Defence Roger Ingebrightsen and Rear Admiral Arne Røksund already knew about this, but did not inform the Norwegian Parliament according to Aftenposten.
Both officials had disclosed the information to Christine Moore MP, the New Democratic Party of Canada's (NDP), House of Commons Shadow Cabinet member of the Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) for Military Procurement (Associate Minister of National Defence), at last month's Hearing.
Silence and strong-arm tactics
Norwegian legislators have previously expressed concerns buying Lockheed Martin's F-35s could contravene the international Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), as they also produce these. Norway has signed the CCM.
WikiLeaks documents show officials assured the Americans the F-35 deal was secured despite competition from Swedish SAAB's JAS Gripen and Eurofighter at the time. Eurofighter withdrew, and MPs allege competition in bidding for the new fighter jets was an illusion when the decision to buy American was taken.
The leaked US Oslo embassy cables demonstrate Norway's government was also pressured into purchasing Lockheed Martin's aircraft instead of opting for SAAB's "after an extensive, coordinated USG effort."
Current Minister of Defence Espen Barth Eide, then Deputy Minister, admitted being positive towards the Americans, but has since asserted what was written are "subjective assessments and not my problem."
Nevertheless, Ambassador Benson K. Whitney claimed in his notes that, "in a call on November 21, Deputy Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide...praised USG efforts for being nuanced, calm, and non-controversial (although persistent) in promoting the F-35. Barth Eide said that this was key to avoiding a backlash...Commenting on the press coverage of the JSF, Barth Eide said that Aftenposten (the paper of record) had "gone off the deep end" with its open anti-JSF campaign of disinformation."
"Looking ahead, Barth Eide said we were now on the same side and it would be very helpful if the USG were to publicly stress the strength of the F-35 and the viability of the JSF program... [and] ...confirm there was no USG political pressure to buy the plane."
"Disgraceful"
Meanwhile, Aftenposten reports the Ministry of Defence has consistently denied allegations real outgoings have been covered up, but has now confirmed the sums discussed with the Canadians are correct.
Deputy Minister of Defence Roger Ingebrightsen tells the paper, "There are no definitive figures for the F-35's lifetime costs at the moment. These calculations are currently being made as quickly as possible and will be presented to Parliament as soon as they are ready.
"Neither are there any indications lifetime costs will be higher than [the145 billion kroner] calculated in 2008, on the contrary," he continues, saying the new figures are "technical adjustments" to include interim inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, and differences between current value and actual currency.
Progress' (FrP) Arild Elllingsen MP, Christine Moore's counterpart, finds today's revelations about the extra costs "completely unacceptable", however.
"What I react most to is that the government is conducting a covert military operation against Parliament by withholding information about the F-35. Unveiling a sum that is 90 billion kroner higher than Parliament is aware of contravenes the duty of disclosure," he says.
Ine Eriksen Søreide, head of Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for the Conservative Party (H), declares, "I can't see how technical adjustments could explain a discrepancy of this size. It seems strange these figures have not been publically disclosed if there's nothing new about them."
http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/norway-officials-as-stealthy-as-f-35/
Fighter jet price fires up opposition
December 13, 2011
New and even higher estimates for what Norway's new fighter jets might cost have set off new howls of protest from the government's opposition in Parliament. Now even the generally pro-military parties are demanding answers.
The cost of new fighter jets to replace Norway's current fleet of F16s remains highly unclear. Now government officials have inflated it by as much as NOK 90 billion, with no clear explanation. PHOTO: Forsvaret/Lars Magne Hovtun
Neither the Conservative Party nor the Progress Party would back a proposal from the Socialist Left party (SV), paradoxically a member of the government coalition, earlier this year to order a probe of the costs involved by the state Auditor General. Now they're raising questions as well, after top military and government officials discussed prices with their counterparts in Canada, which also has been involved in the order for new jets to replace Norway's aging F16s.
Newspaper Aftenposten reported Tuesday that the government and military are now estimating that purchase, cost and maintenance of 51 new F35 fighter jets from US defense contractor Lockheed Martin will amount to USD 40 billion over 30 years, or around NOK 235 billion. The cost estimates were revealed in transcripts of a meeting that State Secretary Roger Ingebrigtsen and Rear Admiral Arne Røksund, chairman of the fighter jet project in the Defense Ministry, had with the defense committee of the Canadian parliament last month.
At the meeting, Ingebrigtsen said in an exchange with Christine Moore of the Canadian defense committee that the budget for purchase of the jets was now USD 10 billion (around NOK 58 billion) for "51-52 jets." He noted that was "10 billion dollars today," cautioning that he was sure the answer could change over the next few months, "when we know more about what's happening in the USA." He expected the US would purchase 2,400 jets (the number will affect the price per jet, for economy of scale reasons) but over longer time, and that would "definitely" affect the price for Norway.
Figure 'not public yet'
Røksund added that including maintenance costs over a 30-year lifetime for the jets, the cost would be USD 40 billion, or NOK 235 billion at expected exchange rates, but he cautioned that he needed to be careful, because that figure hadn't been made public yet.
That has upset members of the Norwegian Parliament, reports Aftenposten, because the figure they've been given is NOK 145 billion. One member of the Progress Party accused the government of a "cover-up" on the fighter jet project.
"What I react to the most is that we have a government that's conducting a cover-up operation, an act of war against the Parliament, by holding back information on the F35," Jan Arild Ellingsen of the Progress Party, a member of the foreign relations and defense committee in the Norwegian Parliamant (Stortinget), told Aftenposten.
Ellingsen said it's been "several months" since the committee was last oriented about the purchase and lifetime costs of the F35. At that time, the sum was NOK 145 billion. The comments made in Canada imply that's since risen by a whopping NOK 90 billion, although Norwegian politicians have long complained the cost estimates vary widely.
"That's higher than the sum the parliament here at home knows about, and that's unacceptable," Ellingsen said. "It's a violation of their information obligation towards Stortinget."
Little or unclear response
Former Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm Erichsen had also used a "collective lifetime cost" for the jets of NOK 145 billion in 2009, noting that it even took into account a more unfavourable price in dollars based on exchange rates.
The defense ministry didn't want Røksund to comment further on his cost estimate, but confirmed he had been correctly cited in the committee transcript. Ingebrigtsen has responded that there are no final numbers available on costs of the jets and that Stortinget will be informed as soon as they are. He said Røksund's sum was based on "technical adjustments" and he insisted Stortinget had been informed of them.
Ine Eriksen Søreide of the Conservative Party wasn't impressed by the response from the defense ministry. "I can't see how technical adjustments can result in such a big difference," she said, adding that she was concerned it was characterized as a figure that hadn't been made public.
"If this new figure is correct, it's very alarming and worthy of strong criticism that it hasn't been presented to Stortinget," Søreide said.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/12/13/fighter-jet-price-fires-up-opposition/
Iraq requests possible F-16 follow-on deal
Iraq could buy a second batch of 18 Lockheed Martin F-16IQs and a package of engines, sensors and weapons worth an estimated $2.3 billion, according to the US arms export agency.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress on 12 December that Iraq has requested the possible sale. The notification is mandatory, but is not a guarantee that Baghdad will sign a contract.
But such a follow-on deal has been expected since Iraq split its planned acquisition of 36 F-16IQs in half.
The Iraqi government signed an $835 million deal with Lockheed on 5 December for 18 F-16IQs. The DSCA had notified Congress of that possible sale 15 months earlier.
The follow-on contract, if signed, would extend F-16 production well into 2014. The F-16 is also competing against the Eurofighter Typhoon for a possible deal in Oman, which already operates an initial batch of 12 F-16C/D Block 50s.
The US government has offered Iraq a similar sensor and weapons suite. The initial and potential follow-on packages include the Northrop Grumman APG-68(V)9 radar and Raytheon AIM-7M Sparrow, AIM-9L/M Sidewinder and AGM-65D Maverick missiles
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iraq-requests-possible-f-16-follow-on-deal-365934/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 13:28 uur
En hier nog wat verontrustende cijfers uit Noorwegen:
52 vliegtuigen voor voor +/- 26 mjd euro gedurende een periode van 30 jaar = aanschaf en exploitatie voor € 500 mjn per kist!! (en de prijs gaat wellicht nog omhoog)
Je begint bijna te denken dat ze onder de deal uit willen. Dergelijke cijfers gooi je alleen in de publiciteit als je alles op alles wilt zetten om er vanaf te komen...
Voor de pro-jsf lobby in Noorwegen is dit een pittig probleem aan het worden...
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 13/12/2011 | 16:48 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 13:28 uur
En hier nog wat verontrustende cijfers uit Noorwegen:
52 vliegtuigen voor voor +/- 26 mjd euro gedurende een periode van 30 jaar = aanschaf en exploitatie voor € 500 mjn per kist!! (en de prijs gaat wellicht nog omhoog)
Je begint bijna te denken dat ze onder de deal uit willen. Dergelijke cijfers gooi je alleen in de publiciteit als je alles op alles wilt zetten om er vanaf te komen...
Voor de pro-jsf lobby in Noorwegen is dit een pittig probleem aan het worden...
Ik constateer een uitgelezen moment voor Noorwegen, Denemarken, Canada en Nederland om eens serieus met elkaar van gedachten te wisselen.
Als ik uit ga van de respectievelijke plangetallen dan kan je toch spreken van +/- 250 vliegtuigen... best een leuk getal voor een fabrikant denk ik dan maar weer.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 16:59 uur
Als ik uit ga van de respectievelijke plangetallen dan kan je toch spreken van +/- 250 vliegtuigen... best een leuk getal voor een Zweedse fabrikant denk ik dan maar weer.
Ik ben zo vrij geweest je quote eventjes aan te passen. Zelfs als er geen Viking-sub komt, komt er mss toch nog een Viking-F-16-vervanger ;)
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 13/12/2011 | 17:56 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 16:59 uur
Als ik uit ga van de respectievelijke plangetallen dan kan je toch spreken van +/- 250 vliegtuigen... best een leuk getal voor een Zweedse fabrikant denk ik dan maar weer.
Ik ben zo vrij geweest je quote eventjes aan te passen. Zelfs als er geen Viking-sub komt, komt er mss toch nog een Viking-F-16-vervanger ;)
Een Zweedse fabrikant is een hele aardige surgestie. ;D
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/12/2011 | 13:28 uur
En hier nog wat verontrustende cijfers uit Noorwegen:
52 vliegtuigen voor voor +/- 26 mjd euro gedurende een periode van 30 jaar = aanschaf en exploitatie voor € 500 mjn per kist!! (en de prijs gaat wellicht nog omhoog)
"Neither are there any indications lifetime costs will be higher than [the145 billion kroner] calculated in 2008, on the contrary," he continues, saying the new figures are "technical adjustments" to include interim inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, and differences between current value and actual currency.
http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/norway-officials-as-stealthy-as-f-35/
EUR 500 miljoen levensduurkosten per F-35A betekend dat we de aanschafkosten hieruit kunnen destilleren door hier 30% van te nemen = circa EUR 150 / USD 202,5 miljoen per F-35A. Rekening houdend met BTW en te bouwen infra-structuur kom je dan op 25 F-35A's uit voor de KLu.
Citaat van: dudge op 13/12/2011 | 11:42 uur
Nog wat plaatjes opgedoken.
Wat mij opvalt, bij de Gripen en de EFT kiest men er voor de 'joystick' in het midden te plaatsen, bij de Rafale en F35 zit het aan de rechterkant. Zit er echt een verschil in of is het vooral de voorkeur van de piloot?
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_o_no4M2xEPY%2FSl97Naec5PI%2FAAAAAAAAHmE%2Fh1LvLqdfTZo%2Fs1600%2Fgripen-745011.jpg&hash=d19ce08688f800449c80a6c137a6fab4186df406)
Israel koos bij de Lavi voor een centrale stick, zodat de vlieger de kist met beide handen kon vliegen in verband met eventuele verwondingen.
De ontwerpers van de F-16 Fighting Falcon en bijvoorbeeld Rafale kozen voor de side-stick om ergonomische redenen. Het is comfortabeler, omdat je onderarm op een steun kan leunen en je controle op een zij-stuurknuppel is beter dan bij een centrale stuurknuppel.
Daarnaast kunnen er instrumenten of beeldschermen midden-onder in het instrument paneel worden geplaatst bij een side-stick,
bij een center stick zit je 'kolenschop' er (gedeeltelijk) voor. De overgang van center-stick naar side-stick en vise versa is niet moeilijk overigens.
Citaat van: Poleme op 13/12/2011 | 19:44 uur
EUR 500 miljoen levensduurkosten per F-35A betekend dat we de aanschafkosten hieruit kunnen destilleren door hier 30% van te nemen = circa EUR 150 / USD 202,5 miljoen per F-35A. Rekening houdend met BTW en te bouwen infra-structuur kom je dan op 25 F-35A's uit voor de KLu.
Dan is er natuurlijk nog de mogelijkheid van een bestelling in meerdere batches. (een batch bestelling tussen 2020 en 2025 levert wellicht een volledig ander prijsplaatje)
Misschien een bestelling per sqn?
Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws
By David Axe
December 13, 2011
2:07 pm
The most expensive weapons program in U.S. history is about to get a lot pricier.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to replace nearly every tactical warplane in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, was already expected to cost $1 trillion dollars for development, production and maintenance over the next 50 years. Now that cost is expected to grow, owing to 13 different design flaws uncovered in the last two months by a hush-hush panel of five Pentagon experts. It could cost up to a billion dollars to fix the flaws on copies of the jet already in production, to say nothing of those yet to come.
In addition to costing more, the stealthy F-35 could take longer to complete testing. That could delay the stealthy jet's combat debut to sometime after 2018 — seven years later than originally planned. And all this comes as the Pentagon braces for big cuts to its budget while trying to save cherished but costly programs like the Joint Strike Fighter.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's top weapons-buyer, convened the so-called "Quick Look Review" panel in October. Its report — 55 pages of dense technical jargon and intricate charts — was leaked this weekend. Kendall and company found a laundry list of flaws with the F-35, including a poorly-placed tail hook, lagging sensors, a buggy electrical system and structural cracks.
Some of the problems — the electrical bugs, for instance — were becoming clear before the the Quick Look Review; others are brand-new. The panelists describe them all in detail and, for the first time, connect them to the program's underlying management problems. Most ominously, the report mentions — but does not describe — a "classified" deficiency. "Dollars to doughnuts it has something to do with stealth," aviation guru Bill Sweetman wrote. In other words, the F-35 might not be as invisible to radar as prime contractor Lockheed Martin said it would be.
The JSF's problems are exacerbated by a production plan that Vice Adm. David Venlet, the government program manager, admitted two weeks ago represents "a miscalculation." Known as "concurrency," the plan allows Lockheed to mass-produce jets — potentially hundreds of them — while testing is still underway. It's a way of ensuring the military gets combat-ready jets as soon as possible, while also helping Lockheed to maximize its profits. That's the theory, at least.
"Concurrency is present to some degree in virtually all DoD programs, though not to the extent that it is on the F-35," the Quick Look panelists wrote. The Pentagon assumed it could get away with a high degree of concurrency owing to new computer simulations meant to take the guesswork out of testing. "The Department had a reasonable basis to be optimistic," the panelists wrote.
But that optimism proved unfounded. "This assessment shows that the F-35 program has discovered and is continuing to discover issues at a rate more typical of early design experience on previous aircraft development programs," the panelists explained. Testing uncovered problems the computers did not predict, resulting in 725 design changes while new jets were rolling off the factory floor in Ft. Worth, Texas.
And every change takes time and costs money. To pay for the fixes, this year, the Pentagon cut its F-35 order from 42 to 30. Next year's order dropped from 35 to 30. "It's basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden," Venlet said.
News of more costs and delays could not have come at a worse time for the Joint Strike Fighter. The program has already been restructured twice since 2010, each time getting stretched out and more expensive. In January, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put the Marines' overweight F-35B variant, which is designed to take off and land vertically, on probation. If Lockheed couldn't fix the jump jet within two years, "it should be cancelled," Gates advised.
Tasting blood in the water, Boeing — America's other fighter-plane manufacturer — dusted off plans for improved F-15s and F-18s to sell to the Pentagon, should the F-35 fail. Deep cuts to the defense budget certainly aren't helping the F-35′s case.
Humbled, Lockheed agreed to share some of the cost of design changes, instead of simply billing the government. The aerospace giant copped to its past problems with the F-35 and promised better performance. "There will not be another re-baseline of this program. We understand that," Lockheed CEO Robert Stevens said in May.
But another "rebaselining," or restructuring, is likely in the wake of the Quick Look Review. F-35 testing and production should be less concurrent and more "event-based," the panelists advised. In other words, the program should worry less about meeting hard deadlines and more about getting the jet's design right. It'll be ready when it's ready. Major production must wait, even if that means older warplanes — the planes the F-35 is supposed to replace — must stay on the front line longer.
Needless to say, that's got some members of Congress up in arms. "It is at this exact moment that the excessive overlap between development and production that was originally structured into the JSF program ... is now coming home to roost," said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If things do not improve — quickly — taxpayers and the warfighter will insist that all options will be on the table. And they should be. We cannot continue on this path."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/joint-strike-fighter-13-flaws/
The J-20 at One Year
By Christopher Whyte
December 13, 2011
It has been almost a since the world got its first, surprising, look at China's stealth fighter, the Chengdu J-20. The in-development fighter, along with the country's new aircraft carrier, underscore the rapid advances that China has been making in military technology in recent years. But what do these accomplishments say about the future of China's military?
While there are many facets of China's military rise to consider, the J-20 is somewhat unique. Whether it will be the first of a full line of fighters, or is merely a technology demonstrator, China's first stealth fighter can tell us a lot about what to expect of the country's future air power capabilities. Moreover, though details about the craft are scarce, recent images and reports from flight trials allow for at least a basic analysis of the capabilities that the PLA is looking to gain from the deployment of such a stealth aircraft.
In the first several of what will be numerous flight tests, the J-20 has been seen to have a number of features that haven't yet found their way onto the world's other full production stealth fighters. While most commentator comparisons talk about the fighter in the context of its U.S. F-22A and Russian PAK-FA stealthy cousins, it's clear that the J-20 is the child of a much broader melting pot of technologies that render it unique.
First and foremost, the plane's air frame is a delta-wing rather than a more standard straight or variable geometry wing design. This modulation, shared by planes like the HAL Tejas and the Eurofighter Typhoon, isn't only inherently easier to build and cheaper to manufacture, but offers a number of advantages in terms of stealth capabilities. After all, as proof-of-concept demonstrators like the YF-23 and the X-32 have proven in the past, the shape of delta-wing craft is quite naturally conducive to the deflection of the electrostatic energies that would otherwise announce the aircraft in radar scans. From the Chinese perspective, this design makes a lot of sense, as it maximizes the J-20's stealth abilities even in the face of minimal access to the advanced material coatings and electronic suites that, apart from shape, are the primary factors making modern planes stealthy.
That being said, delta wing stealth demonstrator craft were, in the past, ultimately not chosen as final design candidates for one significant reason – maneuverability. Even though delta wing designs bring some extra advantages in the shape of a strong airframe for supporting heavier fuel- and pay-loads, they are often prone to flow separation and increased drag when not operating at high speeds and altitudes. The resulting poor maneuverability relative to similarly classed planes is certainly a prescient concern for China, as the J-20 is likely going to be expected to compete with the world's most advanced planes. However, here it's fairly apparent that PLA engineers are aware of this and have built compensatory measures into their design. As a result, the plane shares a number of design characteristics with Europe's premier fighter, including variable position canards and vertical stabilizers that will undoubtedly mean increased knife fight maneuverability and much higher angles of attack in combat without the need to worry about stalls.
Moving beyond basic airframe design, the J-20, in its current form, seems to have glaring tactical drawbacks. The incorporation of Russian Saturn 117S engines in the prototype, for example, as well as reports of difficulties with the development of indigenous thrust vector controlled engine nozzles means that the plane risks being "noisy," something that would negate its ability to remain undetected on radar. Moreover, with Pentagon reports indicating that China will lack the sophisticated stealth coatings and advanced electronic hardware like Low Probability of Intercept Radar tech for some years to come, the J-20 would be unable to stealthily engage in air-to-air combat, as any active use of radar systems would reveal its position much as was the case for first generation stealth planes like America's F-117 Aardvark. Indeed, there's much speculation that there is a technological link between these two craft, as reports of Chinese scavenging of a downed Aardvark in Serbia have abounded since earlier this year.
Even with these drawbacks in mind, however, the strategic value of the Chengdu J-20 is great for China. With what appears to be large conformal weapons bays and powerful engines, the heavy stealth fighter could find itself operating as a long-range interdictor and strike bomber. After all, since it's generally accepted that large numbers of advanced fourth generation fighters still represent the best means of combating other stealth fighters like the U.S. F-35 or the Russo-Indian PAK-FA (due to the relatively small air-to-air payload of the relatively small number of fifth generation aircraft currently in operation), the J-20 may find itself deployed in other roles that make full use of its stealthy shape and likely significant firepower.
This fact, along with reports that China is developing reduced cross-section airframes for their Sukhoi-27 variant, the J-11, makes it clear that the J-20 will likely embrace a first strike ancillary role in near- to medium-term conflict situations. The widespread deployment of such a craft, even in initially small numbers, could provide the PLA Air Force with a powerful and wide-ranging support unit, one that could compliment more conventional fighter and bomber forces by providing stealthy reconnaissance, threatening enemy supply and reconnaissance units and, through the deployment of increasingly advanced BVR and cruise missile tech, deter the incursion of enemy naval forces into what has come to be known as China's island chains.
In the end, regardless of whether or not the J-20 sees refinement as an air superiority fighter before it reaches full production, it's fairly clear that China's first stealth fighter, when deployed, will play a supporting role for some years to come, complementing larger numbers of conventional fighter craft and providing the PLA with the capability to stealthily reconnoiter and strike enemies at long range. Given this, it's easy to see that defense establishments around the world have much to consider and, from advanced missile defense systems to the widespread deployment of fifth-generation craft, must continue to focus on the construction of capable defense structures that can balance against such increasingly advanced and versatile PLA force structures.
Christopher Whyte is a Washington DC area analyst and graduate student in Political Science in International Relations at George Mason University, Virginia.
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/12/13/the-j-20-at-one-year/
'Building Partner Capacity' and Its Consequences
1:33 PM, Dec 13, 2011 • By THOMAS DONNELLY
The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper is reporting that the Japanese government is close to settling on the F-35 Lightning as the much-needed replacement for its F-15 fighter. That's exceptionally good news for a program that's both key to preserving American military preeminence and at a lot of risk due to prospective deep defense budget cuts. Indeed, Japan's decision may actually complicate the Pentagon's challenges in meeting the targets laid out by the Budget Control Act, Obama administration policy, and the uncertainties of the sequestration stemming from the failure of the congressional supercommittee to cut a deficit reduction deal.
The Japan deal has been a long time in the making. The Japanese air force has been shopping for a next generation "F-X" fighter to supplant the approximately 140 F-15s that have been Tokyo's frontline air defense aircraft since the early 1980s. Japan was originally interested in the F-22 Raptor, and was willing to pay a premium price to get it – Japan also paid a premium to be able to build its own version of the F-15 – but the termination of America's F-22 program in 2009 dashed that hope. The final F-22 is on the production line now.
Even though the F-35 program has been an international effort from its inception, including partners like the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey, as well as larger allies like Britain, and with a sale to Israel in the works, the Obama administration did not make it easy for Japan to acquire the Lightning. Working out the details of a technology sharing agreement was not easy, and the administration was also hesitant to anger the Chinese. And make no mistake, Japan's desire to acquire a stealthy, so-called "fifth-generation" aircraft is driven by fear of China and a strong desire to deepen military ties with the United States as much as any need to replace the aging F-15s. This deal is what the U.S. policy of "building partner capacity" is all about: upgrading the capability to a frontline ally to defend itself and to operate more seamlessly with U.S. forces. Selling F-35s to Japan may not provoke the kind of furious response from Beijing as selling new F-16s to Taiwan would, but it is arguably more strategically and operationally important.
The sale of the F-35 to Japan comes at a critical time for the program, as well. The development of the plane has been plagued by the difficulties of settling on final designs and constant restructuring because of shifting Pentagon budgets. Senators Carl Levin and John McCain, the chairman and ranking members, respectively, of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have made the F-35 the most recent target of their jihad against the defense industry and have rammed through a provision in this year's defense authorization act – shortly to be on the floor of both houses of Congress – to force the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin into a fixed-price contract. Considering that the F-35 is still in flight test and that defense budgets are in free fall, such a contract is even more foolish than usual. And then there are the F-35 partner nations to consider, not just the current partners, Japan and Israel, but likely future F-35 nations like Australia and South Korea, both soon to make similar fighter buys.
Indeed, there is nothing more critical to reinvigorating U.S. military posture and coalitions in the Indo-Pacific than the F-35 and a few other critical systems (such as the P-8 maritime patrol plane, the C-17 airlifter, the new tanker, the Littoral Combat Ship) that could form the skeletal structure of a de facto future alliance. It's no surprise that Singapore is seriously considering the F-35 – particularly the "B" model jump jet. Japan's initial buy is for about 40 F-35s, but there are likely to be subsequent procurements. Tokyo might also go for the "B" model, which would very much complicate China's ability to target Japanese airfields with ballistic and cruise missiles. And, once India realizes its recent mistake in purchasing the "fourth-generation" eurofighter, it's likely that there will be other opportunities.
Defense industrial and technology-transfer policy can and should be critical parts of American military strategy, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. During the Cold War and since, the Pentagon and especially the U.S. Navy and Air Force have designed and built systems for themselves and cared little about equipping allies and partners. Such as the problem of the F-22. Likewise, there were and are sales to be made in the Middle East, but with the rising threat of Iran, these, too, are more about strategy than profit.
The F-35 stakes could hardly be higher for the United States. Despite the Pentagon's budget woes, it cannot walk away from the Lightning. There is no substitute for American forces. High-end unmanned systems or a new bomber – indeed, any of the muted substitutes for F-35 – are years if not decades away from being fielded. Nor is there any substitute for America's allies. It's not extreme to say that the commitment to the F-35 is as serious as any other test of American strategic leadership and will to preserve a measure of military technological advantage.
Or put it this way: Tearing apart the F-35 program – which may already be a result of the Budget Control Act and Obama policy – would be as corrosive a signal of weakness and decline as the withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/building-partner-capacity-and-its-consequences_613190.html?page=2
Weakness or belated wisdom?!
Best slap om een artikel over de F35 te schrijven zonder enige kritische noot.
JSF - What's Really Happening
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/13/2011 7:00 AM CST
When the Joint Strike Fighter team told Guy Norris about the jet's first run to its Mach 1.6 design speed, a couple of minor facts slipped their minds. Nobody remembered that the jet had landed (from either that sortie or another run to Mach 1.6) with "peeling and bubbling" of coatings on the horizontal tails and damage to engine thermal panels. Or that the entire test force was subsequently limited to Mach 1.0.
But selective amnesia is not even one of five "major consequence" problems that have already surfaced with the JSF and are disclosed by a top-level Pentagon review obtained by Ares. Those issues affect flight safety, the basic cockpit design, the carrier suitability of the F-35C and other aspects of the program have been identified, and no fixes have been demonstrated yet. Three more "major consequence" problems are "likely" to emerge during tests, including high buffet loads and airframe fatigue.
Update: POGO has the full report here.
Experience from flight testing has eviscerated the argument that the F-35 program architects used to support high concurrency, with fat production contracts early in the test program: that modeling and simulation had advanced to the point where problems would be designed out of the hardware. In fact, the F-35 is having just as many problems as earlier programs, which means that there is no reason to expect that it will not continue to do so.
The "quick look review" (QLR) panel was chartered by acting Pentagon acquisition boss Frank Kendall on Oct. 28, eight days after top U.S. Air Force, Navy and U.K. Royal Air Force operational test force commanders jointly expressed their concern that the F-35 would not be ready to start initial operational testing in 2015, as envisaged in the delayed test program adopted in January.
Kendall was looking for an assessment of test progress, as well as a look at "concurrency risk" - the concern that problems discovered in testing will result in expensive modifications to aircraft that are produced before the fixes can be designed, tested and implemented in production.
The QLR was submitted on Nov. 29, before Navy Vice Adm. Dave Venlet, the JSF program director, disclosed some of the fatigue issues in interviews with AOLDefense. Its existence and some of its findings were reported by Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio early last week.
The most positive thing that the QLR has to say about the program is that the team "identified no fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production." That is, they don't say that the program should be terminated, or that production should be halted until problems are fixed. But the team concludes:
"The combined impact of these issues results in a lack of confidence in the design stability...this lack of confidence, in conjunction with the concurrency driven consequences of the required fixes, supports serious reconsideration of procurement and production planning...The QLR team recommends that further decisions about F-35 concurrent production be event-driven."
Since flight testing started to pick up speed in June 2010, 725 engineering change requests have been initiated, of which 148 are ready to incorporate. On average, it takes 18-24 months between the identification of a change and its implementation in production. JSF production orders started three to four years earlier than other fighters, and even under the current plan, close to 200 aircraft will be on order by the halfway point in flight testing.
Many of the issues described by the QLR have been reported, but not in detail. Others have been played down by the program. The following are four of the "big five" issues that have already surfaced. (The fifth is classified, but dollars to doughnuts it has something to do with stealth.)
We knew that the helmet-mounted display was in trouble. A simpler alternate HMD was ordered from BAE Systems in September, but it does not meet the requirement for "through the airplane" zero-light visibility provided by the electro-optical distributed aperture system. (Yes, that EO-DAS, that makes maneuvering irrelevant.)
Today, the killer problem with EO-DAS is latency: the image in the helmet lags 130 milliseconds behind sightline movement where the spec is under 40 ms. (So the video is where the pilot's head was pointed an eighth of a second ago.) That can't be fixed without changing the JSF's integrated core processor - the jet's central brain - and the EO-DAS sensors. Even the backup helmet faces buffet and latency issues, simply for symbology.
The underwing fuel dump system on the JSF doesn't get fuel clear of the aircraft surfaces, so that fuel accumulates in the flaperon and may get into the integrated power package (IPP) exhaust. That creates a fire hazard, particularly on a ship deck after landing. Fuel dumping has been banned except in an emergency. Two unsuccessful modifications have been tried on the F-35B.
The IPP - the cause of a grounding this summer, after a "catastrophic failure" caused IPP parts to puncture a fuel tank - is turning out to be unreliable. It's supposed to last 2,200 hours, but so far in the flight test program, 16 IPPs have been removed and replaced - a process that takes two days of 24-hour work.
The arrester hook issue has been reported. In the first round of tests, the hook failed to catch the wire once. The QLR notes that tests of a minimal modification - a reprofiled hook with different damper settings - set for April "represent only the initial stages leading into full carrier suitability demonstrations."
Studies are already underway of changing the hook's location - the basic problem is that the designers put the hook closer behind the main landing gear than that of any current or recent Navy aircraft, even the tailless X-47B - but that will have "major, direct primary and secondary structural impacts".
The QLR report predicts more problems, based on experience so far, historical data, and the collapse of the "test is validation" orthodoxy.
F-35 flight tests have not gone beyond 20 degrees angle of attack, and higher-than-predicted buffet loads have been experienced. So far, severity has been similar to current aircraft but it is experienced over a large part of the envelope. Exploration of the high-AoA envelope does not start until the fall of 2012 and full results will not be available until 2014. Excess buffet can accelerate airframe fatigue, and induces jitter in the HMD.
One editorial observation, not from the report: aerodynamic issues are a challenge on a stealth aircraft because some of the standard fixes - fences, strakes and vortex trippers, for instance - can't be used.
Other risks are individually less severe but cumulatively could result in substantial modifications. They include thermal issues - like the current speed restriction - and an untested lightning protection system, which at least until late 2012 means that the aircraft is not allowed within 25 nm of predicted lightning. (That is expected to cancel 25-50% of training events at Eglin AFB.) Weight margins for all versions are paper-thin.
The full QLR is densely packed and makes fascinating reading. Personal view? What keeps going through my mind is Gus McCrae from Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove, after one of the Hat Creek outfit has ridden into a nest of water moccasins:
"Eight sets of bites, not countin' the legs. Ain't no point in countin' the legs.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997
December 13, 2011 (by Eric L. Palmer) - An internal U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) report states that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has multiple complex problems which will take years to fix.
USAF pilot Lt. Col. Dwayne Opella and Lockheed Martin test pilot Mark Ward fly F-35A aircraft AF-6 and AF-7 from Edwards AFB for maturity flight software testing on July 15th, 2011.
An Aviation Week article by Bill Sweetman includes a link to the full report which was marked for official use only "FOUO / U.S. Only".
Aviation Week cites several of the problems in the report. Of interest is how the F-35 program spins events to make them sound like progress. For instance, it was reported in the media recently that the F-35 reached Mach 1.6 in a test. Few glowing statements were spared. Not reported was that after the flight, the aircraft program was limited to Mach 1 performance because of damage to the horizontal stabilisers and engine thermal protection.
Glowing media reports have also stated that the F-35 helmet and distributed aperture system (DAS) have been working great. The DOD report shows otherwise. It reports that the helmet and DAS problems are so severe that the F-35 will not meet operational requirement document (ORD) goals. The temporary replacement helmet has similar visual problems and will not (and never was) able to use DAS capability. Also, an extended range of buffet in the aircraft's flight performance limits the ability to take advantage of visual cueing symbology displayed in the helmet.
Multiple thermal issues, which were reported by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) and other sources some years ago, have made little progress in being fixed. Using the fuel system as a heat-sink, one of the core beliefs in resolving thermal issues, has not been successful. This even includes heat causing the computer-driven main display panels to not function properly. Add to this, the aircraft is yet to be flown in operationally relevant scenarios which will stress thermal management to the maximum. Given the other problems of basic flight with the F-35, expect to hear more about thermal management.
With this, the report states that the aircraft will not be able to perform air-to-air or air or air-to-ground missions.
Pilot training has not started at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida because the aircraft is unsafe to fly. There are restrictions on diving the F-35 because the fuel inerting system (common on aircraft like the F-16) does not have the capacity to make empty portions of the fuel system fire resistant. Also the aircraft has poor resistance to lighting strikes. It cannot be used within 25 miles of lighting conditions. Anyone that has been to Florida knows that this kind of weather is common.
The integrated power pack (IPP)—a critical aircraft system—is significantly unreliable. The IPP was expected to fly on a jet for over 2000 hours before needing to be replaced. Stopping flight test to replace the IPP is now a frequent task. It has taken up to 48 hours of continuous work to change this device.
The report goes on with several more problems of significant mention to do with weight margins that will have a negative affect on range and flight performance. Block 3 software, which was to be completed inside the system design and development phase of the program will not be finished until sometime around 2016; assuming no more delays. Also, the tail hook for the carrier F-35C variant is in the wrong place on the aircraft. A critical design review in 2007 certified the F-35C as good to go.
Realistically the original Joint Strike Fighter partner nations (or any other potential customer) has not much more to look forward to than a flying question mark. System complexity and over-optimism have thrown the program into confusion. Maybe sometime in the 2020's, an intelligent purchaser of military aircraft can consider evaluating the F-35. Until then, any report of F-35 program progress will require verification. Press releases from the marking pukes don't count.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4483.html
Last F-22 rolls off the line
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 12:52 pm, Wednesday December 14 2011 2 Comments
The last scheduled F-22 Raptor has rolled off the production line. (USAF)
The last F-22 Raptor scheduled to be built for the US Air Force has rolled off Lockheed Martin's production line in Georgia.
The fighter, tail number 4195, is the 187th built under the F-22 program, which began in 1988. Two have been lost, leaving the USAF with an operational fleet of 185 of the jets. Tail 4195 is scheduled to join the 525th Fighter Squadron at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska.
The twin engine F-22 was conceived during the closing stages of the Cold War as a stealthy air superiority fighter that would be faster and more manoeuvrable than anything else in the sky. With a top speed of roughly Mach 2.2 and a turning rate about twice that of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the pure flight performance of the F-22 is unlikely to be rivalled anytime soon, especially as fighter design turns to favour more advanced sensors and longer range weapons over close-in flight capabilities.
But the F-22's price tag of roughly US$150 million each ran afoul of the belt tightening atmosphere in Washington, and the program was scuttled in 2009 in favour of the F-35. The US is scheduled to buy 2443 F-35s over the coming years, which are expected to cost about $65 million each once the JSF program reaches full production.
Still, a series of upgrades to the F-22's sensors and weapons carrying capabilities are scheduled to go forward in the next few years, and Lockheed said it will preserve production line tooling and manufacturing know-how in case the Air Force decides to restart production in the future.
Below is a Lockheed Martin video commemorating the milestone.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/12/last-f-22-rolls-off-the-line/
U.S. Air Force to Keep F-22 Equipment
Contract Manufacturing, Industry News
The Air Force has taken steps that leave open an option to restart the premier plane's production relatively cheaply.
Manufacturing GroupDecember 14, 2011
Even as the last F-22 fighter jet rolls out of flag-draped doors at a Lockheed Martin Corp assembly plant, the Air Force has taken steps that leave open an option to restart the premier plane's production relatively cheaply.
The Air Force is preserving the hardware used to build the jet, not scrapping it, although it insists this is solely to sustain the fleet over its projected 30-plus years' "lifecycle."
The F-22 is "easily the most capable fighter aircraft ever built, period," says Richard Aboulafia, a combat plane expert at the Teal Group aerospace consultancy.
"You don't know what the economy and the strategic picture will look like in a decade," he said. "And if one gets better and the other gets worse, you could see a restart."A lunchtime ceremony feting F-22 program employees will mark the emergence of the 187th and final production model from the Marietta, Georgia, plant, 14 years after the most advanced and most costly per-plane U.S. fighter began flight tests.
F-22 supporters maintain it was terminated prematurely.
The fleet, as conceived during the Cold War, was to have been 750. That dropped to 381, then 243, before former Defense Secretary Robert Gates capped it at 187 in a belt-tightening move over program backers' strong objections.
A total of more than 30,000 jigs, fixtures and other "tooling" used to build the plane are being logged into a database and tucked into containers, some custom built, for long-term storage at Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California.
The hardware is valued at $2 billion to $3 billion, according to Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales.
The Sierra depot's high desert climate, low humidity and mild temperatures, are optimal for systems that might be needed to build components to support the fleet, or perhaps one day resume production.
Arms production lines have shut in the past only to be brought back, including aircraft such as the submarine-hunting P-3, U-2 spy plane and B-1A bomber resurrected as the B-1B.
Lockheed is under Air Force contract also to preserve the shop-floor know-how used to manufacture the fighter. It is accomplishing this through a video library of "smart books," DVDs designed to capture such things as how to hold a tool for best results.
The two-pronged preservation effort puts Lockheed in a "great position" to resume production if asked to do so, said Jeff Babione, the company's F-22 program general manager.
But Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, has not been given any reason to think that such a request will come, he added in a telephone interview on Friday.
Bringing back the F-22 line would take less than $200 million, "a fraction of the costs seen in previous line restarts of other weapons systems," Alison Orne, a Lockheed spokeswoman, said by email, citing preliminary analysis.
The Air Force said government-owned F-22 production is being stored "for the sole purpose of sustaining the F-22 fleet" over its lifetime.
"No F-22 parts, tooling or related items are being stored for the purpose of preserving the option of restarting F-22 production," Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman, said in an email.
CUTTING EDGE
She said the Air Force had commissioned a RAND analysis to assess tooling preservation options at congressional direction. The study concluded that saving the hardware "may significantly ease the execution of future F-22 sustainment needs, and the storage of that tooling can be provided at relatively low cost."The radar-evading F-22 "Raptor" entered service in 2005, designed to own the skies on the first day of a conflict because of its low observability, high maneuverability plus sensor advances that make it the top gun for air-to-air combat.
Its cutting-edge capabilities, including agility, engine thrust and flight controls, "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft," according to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet on the plane, which has not yet been used in combat.
The F-22 represents the high end of a tactical fighter mix that advocates say is critical to defend worldwide U.S. interests over coming decades alongside the F-35, a less capable, less costly, Lockheed stealth fighter now in early production.
The Pentagon currently plans to buy more than 2,440 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps at $382.5 billion through 2035, its costliest purchase ever.
The current "program acquisition unit" cost of the F-35A model for the Air Force is $111 million, including "mission systems" and sustainment.
By contrast, the last production lot of four F-22s cost $153 million each, according to Lockheed, not including amortized research, development and maintenance that experts say would add more than $200 million apiece.
RESTART BUTTON?
Advocates of a larger F-22 fleet have cited emerging Russian and Chinese stealth fighters as well as the spread of sophisticated surface-to-air missiles that can home in all but the hardest-to-detect fighters.
The F-22 was barred from export sales to protect its high-tech secrets.
Michael Wynne, who was forced out as Air Force secretary in 2008 after disagreeing with Gates over the production cap, said by email that Japan and Australia would "immediately partner" to restart the line if Congress lifted the F-22 export ban.
http://www.onlineamd.com/aerospace-manufacturing-F22-USAF-amd-121411.aspx
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/12/2011 | 07:56 uur
Also the aircraft has poor resistance to lighting strikes. It cannot be used within 25 miles of lighting conditions. Anyone that has been to Florida knows that this kind of weather is common.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4483.html
Bijnaam maar veranderen?! (ook al mist men de "n" in bovenstaande zinsnede)
Citaat van: Enforcer op 14/12/2011 | 09:37 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/12/2011 | 07:56 uur
Also the aircraft has poor resistance to lighting strikes. It cannot be used within 25 miles of lighting conditions. Anyone that has been to Florida knows that this kind of weather is common.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4483.html
Bijnaam maar veranderen?! (ook al mist men de "n" in bovenstaande zinsnede)
In het Engels kan je beide schrijfwijzes hanteren, maar in het kader van de bijnaam heb jij gelijk. ;D
French PM 'confident' of Brazil fighter jet deal
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Wednesday he was confident of selling Rafale fighter jets to Brazil and could beat off rival bids because the aircraft's technology cannot be matched.
The Rafale is competing against US aviation giant Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet and Swedish manufacturer Saab's Gripen jet for a tender from Brazil to supply 36 multi-role combat aircraft.
"We are confident because we believe that the French offer has the best possible transfer of technology, without equivalent," Fillon said in an interview published with local media on Wednesday.
The French premier begins a three-day visit to Brazil on Thursday.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet was quoted earlier this month in Le Monde as saying that unless the Rafale can find a foreign buyer, the government will have to stop funding its production by Dassault Aviation.
The Rafale was used in the recent war in Libya but the fighter has repeatedly lost out in tenders in countries including Singapore, South Korea, Morocco, and earlier this month, Switzerland.
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/french-news/french-pm-confident--of-brazil-fighter-jet-deal_195423.html
ach .... hebben we vaker gehoord... eerst zien dan geloven
De Amerikanen moeten zich gaan bezinnen wat ze willen (denk ik) en misschien wel op plan B overgaan
Plan B :
- her/doorstarten van productie F-22 + upgrades (met JSF-systemen)
- F-22 vrijgeven voor verkoop aan Australie en Japan.
- doorzetten van upgraden F-16 en F-15
- F-18E/F upgraden voor USN
- F-35 cancelen
- FA-XX met JSF-systemen ontwikkelen en testen
Er is geen controle meer op de ontwikkeling van de JSF, steeds weer nieuwe gebreken en problemen en vertragingen en financieel loopt het ook gigantisch uit de klauwen.
Citaat van: dudge op 14/12/2011 | 11:54 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 14/12/2011 | 11:51 uur
De Amerikanen moeten zich gaan bezinnen wat ze willen (denk ik) en misschien wel op plan B overgaan
Ik denk dat 'de Amerikanen' dat al elke dag doen. Punt is, zij met de beslissingsbevoegdheid hebben de koers nog niet gewijzigd, het is ook een tactiek. Simpelweg omdat het programma door het internationale karakter een heel ander gezicht heeft. Als het een nationaal programma was geweest zoals de F22, dan was er waarschijnlijk al veel eerder openlijk over reductie gesproken.
klopt, maar hoe wil je aan je internationale partners een toestel verkopen voor 150-200 miljoen als deze ooit eens (10 jaar terug) voorgesteld is als een goedkope alleskunner van 65 miljoen. (en in Den Haag rekenen ze waarschijnlijk nog steeds bedrag .. :dead: )
tja. .. moet je als verkoper wel een erg goed verkooppraatje hebben om dit er door te krijgen
Citaat van: dudge op 14/12/2011 | 12:20 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 14/12/2011 | 12:04 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 14/12/2011 | 11:54 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 14/12/2011 | 11:51 uur
De Amerikanen moeten zich gaan bezinnen wat ze willen (denk ik) en misschien wel op plan B overgaan
Ik denk dat 'de Amerikanen' dat al elke dag doen. Punt is, zij met de beslissingsbevoegdheid hebben de koers nog niet gewijzigd, het is ook een tactiek. Simpelweg omdat het programma door het internationale karakter een heel ander gezicht heeft. Als het een nationaal programma was geweest zoals de F22, dan was er waarschijnlijk al veel eerder openlijk over reductie gesproken.
klopt, maar hoe wil je aan je internationale partners een toestel verkopen voor 150-200 miljoen als deze ooit eens (10 jaar terug) voorgesteld is als een goedkope alleskunner van 65 miljoen. (en in Den Haag rekenen ze waarschijnlijk nog steeds bedrag .. :dead: )
tja. .. moet je als verkoper wel een erg goed verkooppraatje hebben om dit er door te krijgen
Dat zou je zeggen. Maar kijk eens naar de wikileaks mbt de Noorse aankoop. Ook in Den Haag weten ze heus wel dat het toestel gaan 65 miljoen gaat worden. Maar, de Amerikanen wilde graag dat de F35 gekocht zou worden, heeft diverse partners aan boord gekregen.
Al in een vroeg staduim zal Nederland, net als Noorwegen, in reactie op de 'stevige' verzoeken (of druk) van de Amerikanen hebben toegezegd dit toestel te kopen. Dan wordt er nog een toneelstukje opgevoerd met een competitie, maar de toezegging is al gedaan, en de Amerikanen voeren druk uit om Nederland daar aan te houden. De Nederlandse politici hebben gelijkertijd toezeggingen aan de Amerikanen gedaan (dat toestel komt er wel), en heeft vervolgens een aantal stappen genomen om dit proces in gang te zetten. Zowel internationaal (geheime toezeggingen aan de Amerikanen) als nationaal zijn er zieltjes aan verbonden. Er is nationaal grote commitment, want er zijn grote beloftes gemaakt aan het publiek. Het level twee partnership werkt beide kanten op, een enorm bedrag is daar een uitgegeven, de mooiste beloftes zijn gedaan, en daar nu op terugkomen zullen de heren en dames als zeer pijnlijk ervaren.
En net als het plangetal van 85, ze weten wel beter, maar kunnen dat nu niet uitleggen, en willen dat ook niet, schuif maar door naar het volgende kabinet.
En daar komt nog bij, Lockheed Martin is misschien niet zo fantastisch als het gaat om het bouwen van vliegtuigen, maar reclame maken/lobbyen doen ze als de beste.
klopt weer helemaal, maar het blijft een gegeven dat de F-35 fors duurder zal uitvallen en hoe willen ze dit verkopen dan ?
en dat we straks maar 25 toestellen voor ons al enorme budget van 4,5 miljard kunnen bekostigen ... ach een eerste batch, later over 4 jaar kopen weer een nieuwe batch .... ooo ja we moeten nog wel weer 4,5 miljard reserveren
Al is de leugen nog zo snel de waarheid achterhaalt haar wel, ..... het fabeltje JSF .... dit loopt een keer helemaal uit de hand
Citaat van: Harald op 14/12/2011 | 11:51 uur
De Amerikanen moeten zich gaan bezinnen wat ze willen (denk ik) en misschien wel op plan B overgaan
Plan B :
- her/doorstarten van productie F-22 + upgrades (met JSF-systemen)
- F-22 vrijgeven voor verkoop aan Australie en Japan.
- doorzetten van upgraden F-16 en F-15
- F-18E/F upgraden voor USN
- F-35 cancelen
- FA-XX met JSF-systemen ontwikkelen en testen
Er is geen controle meer op de ontwikkeling van de JSF, steeds weer nieuwe gebreken en problemen en vertragingen en financieel loopt het ook gigantisch uit de klauwen.
Het zou zo wie zo slim zijn van de Amerikanen om extra F22's te bestellen en daarmee de productielijn open te houden (dan gaat het maar ten kosten van de JSF). Ik begrijp dat de laatste productie serie van 4 F22's is afgetikt op $ 153 mjn per stuk (nog even en de F35A is duurder voor de Amerikanen)
De Amerikanen hebben de ontwikkelingskosten immers (voor zich zelf) al afgeschreven derhalve zou bij een vervolgorder de prijs alleen maar dalen, de voorspelling zijn dat bij een vervolgorder de prijs van de Raptor zou kunnen dalen tot 100 mjn USD.
Daarnaast zou het niet verkeerd zijn om de A2A capaciteiten een beetje op pijl te houden tegen het aankomende Russische en Aziatische geweld.
Als ik kan kiezen waarbij de kosten per F22 ook nog eens lager uitvallen dan de F35, dan was dit voor mij geen moeilijke keuze,
New Articles and Information on the F-35
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4706&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm
Buying the Joint Strike Fighter Caucus
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/12/buying-the-joint-strike-fighter-caucus.html
Joint response: World Air Forces Directory introduction
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/joint-response-world-air-forces-directory-introduction-366005/
No Clear Signal Yet From Japan on F-35 Selection
By WENDELL MINNICK, DAVE MAJUMDAR and PAUL KALLENDER-UMEZU
Published: 14 Dec 2011 10:54
TAIPEI, WASHINGTON and TOKYO - The F-35 could see its wings emblazoned with the red sun roundel, if Japanese media reports are correct.
The Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has been in competition with the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon for the Japanese F-X program for several years. The F-X will replace Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Phantoms, due to begin retirement in 2015.
Japan plans to purchase between 40 and 50 fighters for roughly $10 billion. Tokyo is also considering replacing F-15Js within the next 10 years, increasing the number of F-X fighters to 150.
However, both the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) and the U.S. Pentagon's Joint Program Office are denying any final decision has been made. Boeing discounted the reports, holding out hope the Japanese government will continue to work with the company, as it has with the F-15J.
"We've seen the speculation on the JSF winning but won't comment on that aspect," said Lorenzo Cortes, international communications, Boeing Defense, Space & Security. "The Japanese government could best respond to what's going on. We are expecting a formal announcement as early as this week, but ultimately, it's Japan's discretion as to when they want to do that."
The MoD has repeatedly said they "were unable to confirm neither decision in favor of the F-35 nor the public release of the announcement for Dec. 16," an MoD spokesman said. "Nothing has been decided on the selection, and we can't confirm when the decision will be announced."
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that if true, Japan's selection of the F-35 is a "very strong endorsement from a respected service." The F-35 has been under attack in the U.S. Congress and media due to a variety of production and program problems.
"Despite all the doubts, they still see the F-35s capabilities and technology as the future," he said. "It's the first new customer outside the original partner nations."
Despite the Japanese endorsement for the F-35, there will be challenges finding a role for Japan's indigenous aviation industry, which is facing layoffs and reduced production with the end of the Mitsubishi F-2 fighter, the country's only active fighter line, scheduled to close soon.
"No licensed production will be tantamount to disaster," a Japanese defense industry source said. "We have excellent engineers, and a generation of skills will be lost."
A U.S. defense industry source in Tokyo said the F-35 program is a "complex multinational program that will take some negotiation to carve out a Japanese aviation industry role."
Part of the problem is the limited number of F-X fighters, 40 to 50, which "means investment would be quite high, so question is, does this position the F-35 to fulfill the F-XX/F-15J replacement program?"
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8564122&c=AIR&s=TOP
Japan decision on F-35 jet now seen next week
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-japan-fighter-idUSTRE7BD1I220111214
Eurofighter combat jet: awaiting the outcome of the Indian and Japanese tenders
L'Aquila, Italy - Almost sure that the European fighter jet lost its Japanese tender
(WAPA) - These are decisive days for the Eurofighter Group, as its plane is competing in two major tenders in Japan and India. The first tender seems to have been lost, as announced yesterday by the Japanese press, having favored the F-35 Joint Strike fighter of which 40 units should be purchased to boost its self-defense, despite being more expensive than the two other competitors, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet.
But, it is still hoping and waiting for the decision of the Security Council chaired by the Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, postponed from next Friday to Tuesday.
Another exciting event caused by New Delhi following a tender launched for military aircraft to be allocated to the Indian armed forces. In this case, apart from the Typhoon, the French Rafale of Dassault is competing; the Americans tender offer of the Super Hornet and the F-35 has already been dismissed.
The newly elected President of Finmeccanica, Giuseppe Orsi, said that he is confident in the choice of the Typhoon, and is representing Finmeccanica since it is participating to Eurofighter's programme, together with EADS and BAe Systems, of which it owns approximately 36%. Following the inauguration ceremony of the new establishment of its subsidiary Thales Alenia Space in L'Aquila, he said: "The Eurofighter is a very powerful machine. We hope that India makes the right choice". And speaking of a possible re-entry of the Americans in the competition, he declared that: " Indians have very rigorous processes, therefore I doubt the possibility of another candidate at this stage". (Avionews)
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1136343&pagina_chiamante=index.php
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/12/2011 | 19:24 uur
Part of the problem is the limited number of F-X fighters, 40 to 50, which "means investment would be quite high, so question is, does this position the F-35 to fulfill the F-XX/F-15J replacement program?"
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8564122&c=AIR&s=TOP
Om ook de F15J tzt door de F35 te vervangen zou niet echt handig zijn van de Japanners, dan vervang je een (voormalig) top A2A fighter door een bomb truck.
In een geval van een regionaal conflict lijkt het mij prijsschieten te worden voor de SU35 en meer geavanceerde soortgenoten.
Oman koopt F16's
12 stuks voor $ 600 miljoen dollar = $ 50 miljoen per stuk
Dec 14/11: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $600 million dollar firm-fixed-price, time-and-material and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide the government of Oman with 12 more F-16C/D Block 50s, which will give the RAFO a total of 24: 18 F-16Cs and 6 F-16Ds. The contract also covers support equipment; technical orders; and integrated logistics support – but not expensive items like GE's F110 engines, Northrop Grumman's APG-68v9 radar, etc., which must be bought and supported separately.
Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX until Nov 30/16. This was a sole-source acquisition, and is being managed by the ASC/WWMK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH on behalf of their Foreign Military Sale client (FA8615-12-C-6011).
The Aug 3/10 DSCA request covered up to 18 fighters, and Oman could still order the other 6 if it chooses. When coupled with Iraq's order of 18 F-16IQ Block 52s and ongoing requests for more, and a rumored UAE buy of more F-16E/F Block 60s, Middle Eastern sales appear to be taking a lead role in extending the F-16 production line past 2013.
Aug 3/10: The US DSCA announces Oman's formal request to upgrade its existing F-16 fleet, and buy 18 F-16 Block 50/52 aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and support for an estimated cost of up to $3.5 billion. Items requested include: (het aantal 18 is 12 geworden in de definitieve aankoop, motoren zijn F100, eventuele andere wijzigingen zijn zo niet bekend)
•18 Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 50/52 aircraft
•20 Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 or GE F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engines (current RAFO F-16s use F110s)
•24 Northrop Grumman AN/APG-68v9 radar sets
•20 General Dynamics ATP M61 20mm Vulcan Cannons
•Conformal fuel tanks (CFT), number unspecified
•36 LAU-129/A Common Rail Launchers
•36 LAU-117 MAVERICK missile launchers
•Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD), number unspecified
•22 AN/ARC-238 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems with HAVE QUICK I/II
•22 ITT AN/ALQ-211 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites (AIDEWS) or Raytheon's Advanced Countermeasures Electronic Systems (ACES) with the ALQ-187 electronic warfare system and ALR-93 radar warning receiver
•22 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS)
•18 Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER surveillance and targeting pods, "or similarly capable system"
•4 Goodrich DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods (RECCE)
•40 VSI/Boeing Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems
•Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) Systems with Mode IV
•34 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded-GPS/Inertial Navigation Systems (INS)
•35 of Raytheon's ALE-50 Towed Decoys
•Ground based flight simulator
•Existing fleet upgrades and modification kits
•Site survey and construction.
•Support equipment
•Tanker support and ferry services
•Repair and return, spares and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Oman-Looks-to-Replace-Its-Jaguar-Jets-06503/
Israel Kicks Off Program to Improve Its F-16s and F-15s
Dec 12/11: Delays to the F-35 program appear to be pushing Israel toward further F-16C/D upgrades, and may even trigger new aircraft buys if the multi-national program's delivery dates slip beyond 2017.
The Jerusalem Post reports that the IAF has now decided to extend their F-16C/D "Barak" (Lightning; oddly, also the American name for the F-35) to add flight-control system upgrades, high-resolution displays, and Elbit's DASH helmet-mounted displays. Of the 3 upgrades mentioned, the DASH will make the biggest difference to the fighters' long-term effectiveness. Helmet-mounted displays are quickly becoming standard equipment in modern fighters, because they allow the pilot to take full advantage of new datalinked, wide-angle seeker aerial and ground weapons
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-kicks-off-program-to-improve-its-f16s-and-f15s-01796/
US faces more headaches with F-35 fighter
The US military's F-35 fighter program, already suffering repeated delays, faces a spate of technical problems that the Pentagon expects will slow the pace of production.
The latest troubling revelations for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - the most expensive weapons program in history - emerged from a leaked internal Pentagon report that outlines an array of problems exposed by flight tests.
Australia is considering acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft but has so far contracted to buy just 14, with the first aircraft due to be delivered in in March 2014.
The internal Pentagon report, posted on Tuesday on the independent website Project on Government Oversight, listed five engineering problems "where major consequence issues have been identified" but not yet solved.
The weak points included the pilot's helmet mounted display which has performed poorly, a fuel dump system that leaves fuel on the plane's surface, the plane's integrated power system that has raised safety concerns, and the arresting hook landing gear for the aircraft carrier version of the plane. The hook has failed to work properly in test landings on carriers.
Three other engineering issues also carried the potential to turn into major problems, it said, including airframe fatigue and buffeting or vibration.
The report, dubbed a "Quick Look Review" of the F-35 program, said the technical challenges generated "a lack of confidence in the design stability" of the aircraft, which has already started production.
As a result, the review calls for "serious reconsideration of procurement and production planning," it said.
A spokesman for the Joint Strike Fighter program confirmed that managers were looking at scaling back the pace of production to allow time to fix the technical problems that had emerged.
"That's one way to help reduce concurrency (costs) is to slow that (production) down," spokesman Joe DellaVedova told Agence France-Presse.
But he did not provide details, saying the numbers would depend on the outcome of negotiations with the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, and the proposed defence budget for 2013.
Pentagon officials use the word "concurrency" to describe the F-35 Lightning II program's approach, which sought to launch manufacturing much earlier and in parallel with test flights.
The assumption was that sophisticated simulation technology would preclude the need for dramatic changes in the plane's design and that production could be scheduled much earlier than in previous aircraft programs.
But the authors of the review said that assumption proved overly optimistic.
Winslow Wheeler, an outspoken sceptic of Pentagon spending and the F-35 project, said the latest technical problems suggested the whole fighter program should be scrapped.
"The new revelations are numerous and significant enough to call into question whether F-35 production should be suspended -- if not terminated - even in the minds of today's senior managers in the Pentagon," said Wheeler from the Center for Defense Information.
The Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to form the backbone of the future US air fleet and 11 other allied countries have joined the project.
Defence officials have struggled to keep costs under control, with each plane's price tag doubling in real terms over the past decade.
The price of each plane is roughly at $US113 million ($A114.37 million) in fiscal year 2011 dollars and the program's overall cost has jumped to about $US385 billion.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/us-faces-more-headaches-with-f35-fighter-20111215-1owcv.html
IN FOCUS: F-35 concurrency reaches turning point
By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC
What started as a seemingly isolated and quickly resolved issue - a single bulkhead that buckled during fatigue testing in November 2010 - has mushroomed into a suddenly public crisis of confidence within the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme.
Finding structural cracks in military aircraft is not uncommon during fatigue tests. But the F-35 was supposed to be different. It was the first combat aircraft launched after a revolution in digital design and simulation tools. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) never accepted this theory, but the Department of Defense's acquisition planners did.
So the DoD adopted a strategy that called for Lockheed to deliver hundreds of F-35s concurrently during the flight test phase. Lockheed's workers would shift from assembling flight test aircraft right into early production jets, with no inefficient work stoppage or slowdown between the two phases. Then, production would escalate at a steady clip, rising by 150-200% every year to achieve the most efficient learning curve.
But now, with 58 F-35s ordered so far and another 485 planned before testing ends in fiscal year 2017, DoD officials are having second thoughts, according to a leaked "quick look review" (QLR) on the programme's concurrency risks by a five-member panel of acquisition experts.
After examining multiple assessment reports over a two-week period in late October and early November, the QLR team recommended that the DoD freeze orders at the 2010 level, excluding foreign sales, of 30 aircraft until Lockheed demonstrates that the F-35's design is mature.
The report was leaked at a crucial moment for the programme's international sales efforts. Japan appeared poised to announce an order for 40 F-35s by 16 December, but reportedly postponed the final decision until 20 December. The F-35 is competing for Japan's F-X order with the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Tokyo's decision could have a major influence on South Korea's F-XIII contract decision during 2012, with the same three fighters competing for the 60-aircraft order.
A highlight in the QLR panel's 55-page report is a rarely glimpsed, detailed catalogue of all of the F-35's biggest non-classified problems and concerns. If the programme's critics had hoped for a bonanza of revelations about technical show-stoppers, however, it is likely they were disappointed.
The panel concluded that the F-35 in fact faces no technical issue that would trigger a recommendation to halt all new production. Instead, it recommends that the DoD continue building production aircraft as flight-testing continues, albeit at a reduced level.
The majority of the design problems identified in the report, such as potential immaturity of the integrated power package and complaints about the helmet-mounted display, have already been publicised. Some issues, such as wind buffeting, are described as a major risk, but the report then acknowledged that so far it is no worse than on other fighters.
The report could still mark a major turning-point in the programme's history. By recommending a flat production ramp, the panel challenges a fundamental element of the F-35's original acquisition strategy.
It is the latest in a year-long series of challenges to the concurrency strategy that began when the aluminium alloy bulkhead of a short take-off and vertical landing F-35B cracked after 1,500h of durability testing. Lockheed has acknowledged that the crack was the result of a design error. Ten months later, another crack was found in the forward root rib of a conventional take-off and landing F-35A. Further reviews found structural "hotspots" in all three variants, including a cracked support team for lift fan actuators that have limited vertical landings for three of the five F-35B test aircraft.
So far, none of the structural cracks have required Lockheed to make major design changes that would affect the entire aircraft. The QLR team also found problems that are being addressed locally, without broader design changes.
In any previous fighter programme, these issues may not have received such high-level scrutiny. But no other fighter programme has faced the cost of modifying hundreds of production fighters as flight tests reveal new problems over an 11-year period. Even if the changes are relatively minor, the cumulative cost to make the changes could be prohibitive.
The programme's internal estimates of this "concurrency cost" for the F-35 have not been revealed. A Senate report earlier in 2011 warned that the F-35 could face a similar concurrency bill as the Lockheed F-22, which was listed as $10 million per aircraft, or roughly $1.9 billion in total.
Lockheed officials have disputed the Senate's estimate, however, saying the actual concurrency cost for the F-22 was closer to $5 million per aircraft.
It is also unclear how many F-35s would be subject to the concurrency changes under the existing plan.
The QLR study warned that all 521 production F-35s delivered during the flight test phase could be affected. Lockheed, however, has argued that the F-35 airframe and hardware configuration will be frozen after the fifth lot of low-rate initial production. If the company is right, only 88 F-35s would need the full package of concurrency changes.
That leads to a broad range of cost estimates. The bill could rise to as high as $5.4 billion under the Senate's $10 million estimate for all 543 F-35s scheduled for delivery through 2017. It could also be as low as $440 million, if Lockheed's $5 million estimate for only 88 F-35s is applied.
Vice Admiral David Venlet, the head of the F-35 programme, has not released the actual cost figures, but in one December interview he described the concurrency bill as so high it "sucks the wind out of your lungs".
Lockheed, however, has taken the opposite stance. Company officials still do not accept the DoD's new concern that the concurrency strategy may be flawed. Instead, Lockheed argues that freezing production levels now would also increase costs, as manufacturing and assembly operations become more inefficient. In addition, buying production aircraft more slowly would require the services to preserve the fighters the F-35 would replace for several years more. This is the same argument that Lockheed and DoD programme officials previously made together.
The concurrency strategy has always been contested by the GAO's auditing staff. Four years ago, the office urged the DoD to reduce significantly the overlap of development and production, and to buy no more than 24 production aircraft per year for three years until Lockheed had demonstrated the basic flying qualities of each variant.
"Failure to capture key design knowledge before producing aircraft in quantity can lead to problems that eventually cascade and become magnified through the product development and production phases," the GAO said in a 2007 report.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-f-35-concurrency-reaches-turning-point-366056/
Bekijk via de link de schema's van alle varianten en de ingekleurde problemgebieden.
Third strike in a defence debacleRobert Gottliebsen
Published 7:05 AM, 16 Dec 2011 Last update 10:10 AM, 16 Dec 2011
Americans are starting to take Australians for granted. There were signs of this in the President Obama visit but this new phase in our relationship was taken to a new high when Lockheed Martin executive vice-president Tom Burbage visited us this week. Burbage must love coming to Australia, where he finds an oasis of pleasure. He is able to say that all is well with the Joint Strike Fighters and not be questioned.
The Australian Defence Minster is cocooned from the problems of the JSF by his defence chiefs while the media accepts without question Burbage's assurances that all is well.
But then poor Tom must leave his oasis and go back to the real world – the US, where the JSF review conducted by three deputy assistant secretaries of defence (David Ahern, Edward G Greer and Stephen Welby) and two other top government defence experts (James Woolsey and James MacStravic) has revealed deep and serious problems in and with the JSF aircraft designs.
If the JSF reviewers are right about the aircraft's problems, then Burbage and Lockheed have more than taken us for granted – they have misled the nation.
Alternatively, perhaps the JSF reviewers are wrong and Lockheed Martin Corp, through Burbage, is right.
In Business Spectator we alerted readers to the existence of the JSF review and the problems it revealed about the aircraft but we relied on US newspaper leaks (Headed for a JSF tailspin, Dec 13). Now the final report is out things are far worse than the leaks indicated.
The review says there are 725 change requests at the engineering kick-off stage; 696 change requests at the engineering release stage; 538 change requests awaiting manufacturing bill of materials release and 148 change requests awaiting implementation.
The median time from issue identification to implementation of change into production varies between 18 and 24 months. Remember this aircraft is trying to fly while this multitude of change is being undertaken. But there is more.
The report isolates that the JSF is experiencing moderate to severe buffeting in its flying. A small amount of buffeting can be a good thing in an aircraft as a warning signal to the pilot but if buffeting levels rise, it usually indicates a fundamental problem with the aircraft.
In some of the tables in the report's appendix, the review panel appears to be indicating that some of the buffeting is reaching dangerous levels. If this happens it may require major changes in the aircraft which could affect performance. Interestingly, Australian aeronautical engineers in the Air Power Australia Think Tank warned the Pentagon in 2004-2005 that the early design of the JSF may be quite vulnerable to buffeting. Australians appear to have isolated the JSF dangers well before the Americans but unfortunately our department of defence didn't listen and relied on American rather than Australian expertise.
But the JSF problems get worst. The appendices of the review carry three diagrams of the airframe of the aircraft for each of its three purposes. Below is the CV or carrier version which has not yet started its fatigue testing on its airframe but the severe red lines going through the diagram indicate difficult or complex modifications are required.
Almost certainly this conclusion has been reached as a result of analysis of the problems showing up in testing in the other versions.
click the image to enlarge
The second version is the so-called STOVL, which was designed for short take-off and vertical landing. You will see in the diagram that there are extensive areas that require difficult access or complex modifications. Only 9.375 per cent of this aircraft's fatigue testing has been done but already it seems that some complex modifications and some new design/different parts will be required. The cost of these in conjunction with other problems may cause it to be abandoned. But I must emphasise that no decision has been made.
click the image to enlarge
Then comes the CTOL – the Australian version of the plane which has reached some 18.75 per cent of its fatigue testing. As you can see in the diagram below, there are problems in parts of the aircraft's airframe which will require difficult access or complex modification. Then there are the five major frames which carry the wings, which the diagram shows have problems which require moderately difficult access or moderately complex modifications. These are coded yellow.
click the image to enlarge
It would seem that in the case of the STOVL, a new frame will be required, whereas with our aircraft an attempt will be made to modify these fatigue problem-ridden parts. There is a grave danger that even if the aircraft can be made safe, it will not last a long time. Alternatively the modifications will further reduce the performance of the Australian JSF.
Given this diagram, the buffeting and the enormous number of problems requiring 18 to 24 months to solve, for Lockheed to claim to Australian ministers and press that the program did not have major problems will test the boundaries of credibility.
Australians traditionally have been admired around the world for speaking their mind and not suffering fools lightly. Now on the JSF issue we are not only taken for granted, but becoming like frightened rabbits and not prepared to face the truth.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/JSF-joint-strike-fighter-Lockheed-Martin-Tom-Burba-pd20111216-PKR3V?OpenDocument&emcontent_Gottliebsen
Leaked Pentagon Report Reveals Slew of Joint Strike Fighter Problems
By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program faces a bevy of serious issues that have the potential to further drive up costs and to significantly add to delays to the program, according to the findings of a high-level Pentagon review completed in November 2011. The report containing the results of the "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review" was obtained by POGO, which first made the report available to the public[click here to view the report below the jump]. Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio first reported on the report's findings.
Although the Quick Look Review (QLR) team did not identify any "fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production," thirteen major issues were found. In sum, according to the report:
Five issues were found where major consequence issues have been identified, but root cause, corrective action or fix effectivity are still in development: Helmet Mounted Display System, Fuel Dump Subsystem, Integrated Power Package, Arresting Gear System (CV variant) and a classified issue [Aviation Week's Bill Sweetman believes the "classified issue" refers to something related to the JSF's stealth capability]. Three issues were found where potentially major consequence discovery is likely pending outcomes of further discovery: Buffet, Fatigue Life, and Test Execution. Five issues were found where consequence or cost is moderate, but the number of moderate issues poses a cumulative concurrency risk: Software, Weight Management, Thermal Concerns, Autonomic Logistics Information System and Lightning Protection.
Given that the F-35 is in an early stage of flight testing, the QLR team believes it is likely more problems will come to light.
More problems threaten to exacerbate the already spiraling costs of the F-35, which has already been set back by years of delays and double digit cost growth. The F-35 is the world's most expensive weapons program, currently estimated to cost some $385 billion for development and production, and about $1 trillion to maintain and operate F-35 aircraft over decades.
The review called into question the large amount of "concurrency" built into the F-35 program. Concurrency is the practice of procuring some quantity of a weapon system before it's been fully developed and tested. Buying more, early while a program is still in development means there is more concurrency. "Concurrency is present to some degree in virtually all DoD programs, though not to the extent that it is on the F-35," the report notes, adding that "the F-35 program began procurement in FY07 before flying the first developmental aircraft (BF-1) in FY08." POGO has long argued that excessive concurrency is a bad deal for taxpayers and has advocated that the U.S. "fly before it buys."
Relatively large numbers of F-35s are being procured even though the program is early in its development and testing, which means when problems are discovered, the relatively large number of already-procured planes have to undergo costly retrofits. The large number of retrofits and changes concerned the QLR team:
...the quantity of major Change Requests (CRs) from June 2010 to November 2011 is a concern. Currently, there are 725 change requests which are in the process at the engineering kickoff stage, 696 change requests at the engineering release stage, 538 change requests awaiting manufacturing bill of materials (MBOM) release, and 148 change requests available awaiting implementation. Therefore, of the 725 change requests that have been at the engineering kickoff stage, 577 are still not yet available to implement. These figures are indicative of the large volume of change traffic on this program and low design maturity.
The QLR team essentially urged the F-35 program to go slowly and make production decisions based on how the aircraft does in testing. Additionally, they recommended that assessments of concurrency for the three different variants of the F-35 be considered separately because they have substantially different designs and expectations for when they will be developed, tested, and produced.
Prominent critics did not mince words in reaction to the report. "The new revelations are numerous and significant enough to call into question whether F-35 production should be suspended—if not terminated—even in the minds of today's senior managers in the Pentagon," stated Winslow Wheeler, a former veteran Senate staffer and current director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the non-profit Center for Defense Information, in an email describing the report's results. Former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Bob Cox that the problems, when taken together, "are a showstopper."
The United States also has several international partners who are paying for some development costs and planning on buying F-35s. Those partners are watching the program closely. One of those is Australia. Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia, a think tank that has been critical of the F-35, told POGO, "The program is clearly beyond repair, as the QLR shows that the problems in the design are deep and systemic. Bandaiding is not going to yield a viable product."
But just as significant is report language that calls into question many of the F-35's capabilities.
"Performance vis-à-vis so called 'legacy' aircraft is seriously questioned," Wheeler added. "Legacy " aircraft refer to the planes the F-35 is intended to replace, such as the F-16, F/A-18, A-10 and other planes.
According to the report, there is a concern about "the lack of certain legacy aircraft CAS [close air support] capabilities on the F-35." Furthermore:
The operational testers cited unsatisfactory progress and the likelihood of severe operational impacts for survivability, lethality, air vehicle performance, and employment. These conclusions were driven by certain classified issues, critical performance criteria for the helmet mounted display, air vehicle performance, and air-to-air weapons employment."
Check out the full report here:
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2011/12/leaked-pentagon-report-reveals-slew-of-joint-strike-fighter-problems.html
Canada locked on to F-35 jet, no matter the cost: analysis
By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News December 15, 2011
There is no chance that Canada will cancel its order for about 65 F-35 joint strike fighters.
That fact was underlined again this week with reports from Japan that before Christmas, Tokyo will announce its intention to buy as many as 50 of the state-of-the-art stealth warplanes.
Japan made its choice after having the kind of long, hard look at rival aircraft — the Typhoon Eurofighter and Boeing's F-18 — that critics in Canada have insisted that the Harper government should have undertaken before it decided to order a fleet of F-35s from Lockheed Martin without a formal bidding process.
With Japan now having finally decided to opt for the F-35, 10 of Canada's allies including Australia, Israel and tiny Singapore — have reached the same conclusion as the Harper government: that the joint strike fighter is the best choice to deal with emerging security threats in the 21st century.
Largely as a result of Japan's decision to buy the F-35, South Korea is also expected to purchase as many as 60 F-35s. Turkey may confirm the purchase of 100 joint strike fighters before the end of the year, too. India is another country urgently considering whether to buy the jet, also known as the Lightning II.
Australia has been so keen to acquire the F-35 that when its order for about 100 of the new aircraft was delayed, Canberra chose to purchase a small number of F-18 Super Hornets, which are largely based on 30-year-old technologies, as a stop-gap measure until it can receive its joint strike fighters.
Originally designed to cost about $35 million per aircraft, because of cost overruns and delays, the F-35 is now the most expensive weapon procurement program ever undertaken. Orders taken so far are worth about $300 billion and counting.
Despite its staggering cost, the jets' capabilities have appealed to western governments deeply concerned with how quickly China is acquiring aircraft carriers and expanding its blue water and sub-surface navy to project military power far out into the Pacific Ocean. Beijing is also building a fleet of icebreakers to operate in the Arctic Ocean.
Developed with seed money from the U.S., Australia and six NATO partners including Canada, the joint strike fighter collaboration incorporates state-of-the-art stealth technologies that Beijing and Moscow are known to be aggressively pursuing.
Japan is to spend $6 billion on its F-35s, or about $120 million per aircraft. Britain confirmed last week that it would buy 30 F-35s at a cost of about $140 million per aircraft. However, some of the aircraft that are part of the British order are a more expensive naval variant than the model that the Royal Canadian Air Force is buying.
Canada has estimated that it will pay about $75 million for each of its new fighters. This is undoubtedly on the low side, but calculating and comparing the actual per unit costs for fighter aircraft is notoriously difficult because each country buys a jet with somewhat distinct technical capabilities and uses different arithmetic to tabulate the purchase price and repair and maintenance costs over the expected 40-year flying life. The more F-35s that are ordered, however, the lower the per unit cost for every country buying the aircraft.
The Liberals, New Democrats, peace groups and some commentators in Canada have been sharply critical of the Harper government's plans to purchase the F-35. As well as demanding a bidding process, they have asserted that there should have been a public debate about whether Canada needed such an expensive, sophisticated fighter jet.
But as happened with Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan and unproven allegations regarding the mistreatment of Taliban detainees, the F-35 purchase has never become a significant issue for voters.
This does not excuse or disguise the fact that the Harper government, the military and Lockheed have done a dreadful job of explaining the fighters escalating costs and the economic benefits of the F-35 to Canadian aerospace and high-tech companies. Nor have they said much about why Canada's closest allies are almost unanimous in wanting the same aircraft that Ottawa is acquiring even though it costs so much.
At a time of shrinking defence budgets, Japan has apparently decided that the F-35 is its best option, although the fighter costs at least 50 per cent more than the Typhoon and the Super Hornet. Japan opted to go with the largely untested, but far more advanced aircraft joint strike fighter, although the Typhoon performed well for Britain's Royal Air Force during NATO's Libyan bombing campaign.
The sale to Japan is seen as vital to the F-35's future. The new aircraft has been dogged by steep price increases and vexing technical issues mostly related to a Marine Corps variant of the aircraft that Canada and Japan are not purchasing.
The controversy over the lack of a formal bidding process for the F-35 in Ottawa, which the Liberal government of the day first committed to in 1997, has largely ignored the reality that Canada also did not have an open competition when it recently spent several billion dollars to acquire C-130 J Super Hercules and C-17 Galaxy transports.
Both of these new aircraft were used extensively to support Canada's operations in Afghanistan and against Libya. If the C-130-J and C-17 had been put through an official tendering process, and the only alternative to those transports — the Airbus consortium's A400M — had won, the RCAF would still be without any new transport aircraft. This is because the A400M's development is years behind schedule. Hobbled by technical and financial issues, it has attracted far less interest from international buyers than the Super Hercules or the Galaxy.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canada+locked+matter+cost+analysis/5866021/story.html#ixzz1gfsn1B00
Buyer's Remorse: How Much Has the F-22 Really Cost?
The 196th and final F-22 Raptor has rolled out of Lockheed Martin's factory in Marietta, Georgia. That means yesterday marked an end to more than 14 years of production for what's widely considered the most fearsome jet fighter in history. And also one of the costliest.
So what's the cost? As little as $137 million per jet and as much as $678 million, depending on how and what you count. The thing is, the best way of calculating the F-22′s cost may be the most abstract. But any way you crunch the numbers, the world's best dogfighter has also been one of the most expensive operational warplanes ever.
Over the years, the Raptor's cost has been the subject of intense debate in the Pentagon, the White House, Congress and the media. But advocates and critics tend to quote different figures to serve their various agendas. Fans of the twin-engine fighter usually refer to the "flyaway cost" - that is, how much Lockheed charged the government to piece together each Raptor after all development has been paid for. In other words, just construction spending.
By that reckoning, each of the last 60 F-22s set the taxpayer back $137 million, only slightly more than the roughly $110 million apiece Americans pay for a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - a plane specifically designed to be "affordable," whatever that means. (All figures are in roughly constant dollars.)
Haters cite "unit cost," which includes development and production spending divided by the number of jets built. F-22 production and development, including currently approved upgrades, totals $74 billion, resulting in a unit cost of $377 million.
And just because the last Raptor left the Marietta factory doesn't mean the unit cost is fixed at $377 million. If the Air Force ever gets around to adding a long-planned-for datalink, the unit cost could increase slightly. Tweaks to prevent future groundings - like those that occurred this year - would also push the unit cost up.
By contrast, the F-35′s unit cost should stabilize at around $157 million, owing to a massive 2,443-plane production run. That's assuming the Joint Strike Fighter doesn't get canceled or curtailed following revelations of new design flaws.
There's a third way to calculate the F-22′s burden on the taxpayer. "Lifecycle cost" adds up the price of fuel, spare parts and maintenance during the jet's projected 40-year lifespan. The Government Accountability Office estimates it will cost $59 billion to fix and fly the F-22s until they retire. If you add unit cost and per-plane lifecycle cost, you get the total amount the United States spends to design, produce and operate a single Raptor: a whopping $678 million.
F-35 lifecycle plus unit cost, assuming nothing else goes wrong? $469 million, according to Air Force figures quoted by the GAO.
The fourth and final approach to calculating the Raptor's price takes into account its effectiveness. It's a trickier measurement. But it might be the best one to consider. It asks: How much value does the U.S. government get from its investment in F-22s?
While it's undetectable in isolated flyaway, unit and lifecycle cost figures, value is inarguably important. A cheap used car that never leaves the driveway is, in a real sense, more expensive than a car you pay sticker price for and drive every day.
So consider this: since the F-22 entered service in 2005, every other operational warplane in the U.S. arsenal has seen action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or other conflict zones. But the tiny fleet of pricey F-22s, optimized for ultra-rare dogfighting missions, missing key upgrades and frequently grounded, hasn't flown a single combat sortie.
That should be the real source of buyer's remorse.
http://gizmodo.com/5868405/buyers-remorse-how-much-has-the-f+22-really-cost
French air force chief confident of Rafale victory in Indian contest
By: Greg Waldron Singapore
Gen Jean-Paul Paloméros, chief of staff of the French air force, is confident about the Dassault Rafale's prospects in major international competitions, and partially attributes the aircraft's previous losses in Singapore and South Korea to politics.
"I've flown in the Rafale and I know what it can do," said Paloméros, speaking to Flightglobal at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace exhibition in Malaysia late last month. "Rafale was designed since conception as a multi-role aircraft," he added.
According to Paloméros, the Rafale is well suited to handle emerging air-to-air and air-to-ground threats in the Asia-Pacific region.
"The Rafale has very high manoueverability," he said. "It will be getting an AESA [active electronically scanned array] radar and it has good weapons. It will also receive the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile, offering extra range against any types of threats."
The AESA version of the Thales RBE2 radar will be introduced into Rafale in 2013, when French forces begin receiving the fourth block of production aircraft. The Meteor is still undergoing development, but should be deployed on the Rafale after the middle of the decade.
Paloméros is confident the Rafale will emerge triumphant in India's medium multi-role combat aircraft competition for 126 fighters, where it is on a shortlist with the Eurofighter Typhoon. Indian media reports suggest the decision is imminent, possibly before the end of 2011.
"The Indians are working on their decision," he said. "We have close contacts with India owing to the [Dassault] Mirage 2000. They are more than happy, and are upgrading these aircraft. They know French industry very well. I'm confident in this competition. They are real experts and did a great job evaluating the aircraft."
He added the Rafale is also well suited for Malaysia's 18-aircraft multi-role combat aircraft competition. A Royal Malaysian Air Force team visited France this year to conduct flight trials in the type. Paloméros said although the weather was "horrible", the visitors liked the aircraft and gained the opportunity to work with Rafale in challenging conditions.
As for the design's failure so far to win a foreign buyer, Paloméros said: "In Singapore the Rafale was in the final selection against the Boeing F-15, as was the case in South Korea's F-X I competition. The F-15 was a good choice for both countries, but its selection had a lot to do with politics as well."
He said the French air force is working hard to help pin down a Rafale sale in the United Arab Emirates, which recently stunned the defence aerospace industry by issuing a request for a proposal linked to the Eurofighter Typhoon and also spoke with Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The UAE has a long-running requirement to replace 60 Mirage 2000-9s.
"We are working very hard with the UAE. They have participated in operations over Libya alongside Rafale and they know what they want. In terms of capabilities, we are in the same room. As for negotiations, we'll see."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/french-air-force-chief-confident-of-rafale-victory-in-indian-contest-366102/
Boeing: F-35 hasn't yet won in Japan
By John Reed Friday, December 16th, 2011 11:23 am
Posted in Air, International, Policy, Rumors
Despite news reports claiming that Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will win Japan's F-X fighter contest, Boeing officials say Tokyo delayed the contract award until next week because it is still heavily weighing all three contestants, including Boeing's Super Hornet.
"We think what they've done is taken another hard look at the full situation and have decided that if they do pick F-35 there are some things that they are not sure of right now, some risk in terms of cost and schedule," saidPhil Mills, Boeing's lead salesman for the F-X contest during a Dec. 16 interview. "I personally think that they are taking another look at what's the real, best move for Japan to make right now."
Tokyo was supposed to announce the winner of the contest between the F-35, Boeing's F/A-18E Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace two squadrons of aging F-4 Phantoms on Dec. 16. However, on Dec. 14 it was announced that Japan would delay the decision until Dec. 20 because officials in Tokyo "decided they need to go back and look at some more facts before they make a decision," said Mills.
He added that both Japan's defense minister and secretary general of it's armed forces have denied that the F-35 has won. Mills also denied initial reports saying that Tokyo delayed its source selection until next week because several key decision makers are traveling. "Everybody's in town, that could be an excuse that somebody said, but I'm pretty sure that it's more than that," said Mills.
"We think that they are still working to ensure that they are working to ensure that they have a good final decision before they announce," added Mills. "We know that the [Japanese] prime minister has not been briefed nor has the cabinet, and those things have to happen before there is a decision."
Boeing is pitching the Super Hornet as the proven, low-cost, low-risk alternative to the F-35 and Eurofighter.
"I don't think there is any significant difference between capabilities between the two airplanes," said Mills, arguing that the Super Hornet is flying today and even has some stealth capability.
"The Block II Super Hornet actually has the same avionics package and weapons system that we had designed for our JSF offering; that includes APG-79 AESA radar and a much different avionics architecture that includes a high speed data network."
He also played the interoperability card, saying that replacing the F-4s with a jet used by the U.S. Navy would give Japan a modern fighter that is being used by one of Japan's most important allies. He also pointed out that Both the U.S. Navy plans to fly its Super Hornets alongside Lockheed's F-35s. Japan, said Mills, could buy Super Hornets to replace its F-4s in the next couple of years and then replace its oldest F-15 Eagles with F-35s once the JSF program has stabilized.
"If you look at F-18s to replace the F-4s right now, that makes sense, they need airplanes right now, they need high-capability, ow-risk airplanes and they want to do [locally] licensed production," said Mills. "We can make that happen on-time and on-budget. Let F-35 mature and then maybe replace older F-15s with F-35s and what [the Japan Air Self Defense Force] would end up with a force structure that has a lot of commonality with the two largest air forces in the Pacific region; those being the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. So they'd have F-15s and F-35s common with the Air Force and they'd have F-18s and F-35s, assuming the Navy eventually gets F-35s out here, so they'd have that force structure in common with the Navy."
Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/12/16/boeing-f-35-hasnt-yet-won-in-japan/#ixzz1gickWUQE
DoDBuzz.com
Serb air force seeks new fighter jets
By Aleksandar Vasovic
BELGRADE, Dec 16 (Reuters) - The Serbian air force, left with just a handful of operational planes after wars in the 1990s, wants to buy a dozen aircraft at a cost of around 1 billion euros (1.3 billion), a defence official said on Friday.
"The procurement of two squadrons, weapons systems, spares and training will likely require additional borrowing," said the official, who asked not to be named. "Parliamentary approval would be needed."
"We would ideally need between 12 and 16 new planes to secure our air space," he said. "A billion euros would do."
In an interview with the Odbrana defence bi-weekly published on Friday, Serbia's air force commander Brigadier General Ranko Zivak said the defence ministry would invite foreign manufacturers next year to make offers.
Serbia's military budget accounted for about 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) or about 1.15 billion euros in 2011 and next year's military budget will likely stay the same.
The source did not elaborate on how Serbia would secure borrowing and stay below a public debt lid set at 45 percent of GDP and within fiscal rules which form part of a 18-month 1 billion euro stand-by deal with the International Monetary Fund.
Serbia's military aviation, a successor of former communist Yugoslavia's air force, has been plagued by obsolescence and a lack of aircraft for more than two decades.
It fell into disrepair during a United Nations weapons embargo in the 1990s over Serbia's role in wars in other parts of ex-Yugoslavia. Most of its modern Soviet-built MIG 29 fighters were destroyed by NATO during a 1999 bombing campaign to end the Kosovo war.
The Serbian fighter force is currently comprised of three MIG 29s and about a dozen obsolete MIG 21s which will end service by end-2012. In the interview, Zivak said the defense ministry would finalise purchase plans this month.
Top Serbian defence officials have said the country was evaluating Russian Sukhoi Su-30, the United States-made F16 and F18, France's Rafalle, Sweden's JAS Gripen, Chinese JF-17 or the internationally-made Eurofighter.
"Perhaps the best option would be a lease-to-buy deal, but that remains to be seen," the defence official said.
Belgrade also has to decide whether it will buy planes from NATO countries or its allies Russia and China.
After the ouster of former autocratic President Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, Serbia sought to improve relations with NATO, but retained military neutrality. ($1 = 0.7694 euros) (Reporting By Aleksandar Vasovic; editing by Philippa Fletcher)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/serbia-airforce-idUSL6E7NG2G020111216
Christmas gift?
The Defence ministry and air force officials are working hard, going through complex calculations to decide the lowest bidder for the 126 fighter jet contract.
Grapevine has it that the winner between the French contender Rafale and the European consortium's Eurofighter will be declared after Christmas. After all, the employees of the two contenders are keen to enjoy the holiday season.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/winner-of-mrca-deal-after-christmas--eurofighter-vs-rafale/1/164683.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/12/2011 | 10:55 uur
Serb air force seeks new fighter jets
"Perhaps the best option would be a lease-to-buy deal, but that remains to be seen," the defence official said.
Mss weer een kans voor de Gripen...gezien deze reeds geleased werd aan de Tsjechen en Hongaren.
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 17/12/2011 | 13:21 uur
Mss weer een kans voor de Gripen...gezien deze reeds geleased werd aan de Tsjechen en Hongaren.
Lijkt mij de meest voor de handliggende keuze, dat of occasions als F16 en F18
Misschien kunnen ze meeliften op de Zwitserse keuze.
Citaat van: dudge op 17/12/2011 | 13:34 uur
Het lijkt me helemaal niet zo zeker dat de serven voor een westers model gaan. Ook gezien de te dragen wapens en waar ze nu reeds mee werken.
Ze willen uiteindelijk toch binnen de EU en wellicht in de NAVO, dat geeft wel een beperking met een Russische of Chinees type, maar we zullen het zien.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/12/2011 | 13:32 uur
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 17/12/2011 | 13:21 uur
Mss weer een kans voor de Gripen...gezien deze reeds geleased werd aan de Tsjechen en Hongaren.
Lijkt mij de meest voor de handliggende keuze, dat of occasions als F16 en F18
Misschien kunnen ze meeliften op de Zwitserse keuze.
De Zweedse luchtmacht heeft ook een aantal gebruikte Gripen te koop staan.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 17/12/2011 | 14:01 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/12/2011 | 13:32 uur
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 17/12/2011 | 13:21 uur
Mss weer een kans voor de Gripen...gezien deze reeds geleased werd aan de Tsjechen en Hongaren.
Lijkt mij de meest voor de handliggende keuze, dat of occasions als F16 en F18
Misschien kunnen ze meeliften op de Zwitserse keuze.
De Zweedse luchtmacht heeft ook een aantal gebruikte Gripen te koop staan.
Ze willen er +/- 100 overhouden en er zijn destijds meer dan 200 besteld.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/12/2011 | 14:04 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 17/12/2011 | 14:01 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/12/2011 | 13:32 uur
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 17/12/2011 | 13:21 uur
Mss weer een kans voor de Gripen...gezien deze reeds geleased werd aan de Tsjechen en Hongaren.
Lijkt mij de meest voor de handliggende keuze, dat of occasions als F16 en F18
Misschien kunnen ze meeliften op de Zwitserse keuze.
De Zweedse luchtmacht heeft ook een aantal gebruikte Gripen te koop staan.
Ze willen er +/- 100 overhouden en er zijn destijds meer dan 200 besteld.
laat de zweden dan ook 12 tot 16 gebruikte Gripen aan Servie verkopen, zo verdienen er ook nog iets aan.
Japan
Dec 20, 2011
Share | More
Japan delivers Lockheed some cheer
By Kosuke Takahashi
TOKYO - Although an official announcement on Japan's choice of its next mainstay fighter aircraft is not due until Tuesday, industry analysts and media reports state with certainty that Tokyo has opted for Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
While the decision on the aircraft, known in Japan as its F-X fighter, will be made public on Tuesday at a Security Council meeting chaired by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, some military experts still insist the F-35 is not the best aircraft to fulfill Japan's needs.
Concluding a process that started in 2007, this week's selection was made from three candidates - Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, also known the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II and Eurofighter Typhoon. Japan
Dilbert
needs to start replacing an aging fleet of about 67 Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ fighters.
In choosing the F-35, Tokyo seems to prioritized high-tech stealth capabilities and US-Japan relations over air superiority, say those experts. The plane also has comparatively high maintenance and purchase costs as well as a potentially lower level of participation by domestic firms.
Of the three models, the F-35 is the only fifth-generation fighter among the three, This means it has high-stealth capabilities, making radar detection difficult. It is also equipped with an Electro-optical Targeting System (EOTS), considered the world's most advanced targeting system for long-range detection and precision, a feature that even the F-22 Raptor lacks.
The Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) had four key criteria: the performance of the aircraft and its weapons; price; the participation of domestic firms in production and repairs and after-sales maintenance support from the manufacturers. Regarding performance criteria, the MoD has been focusing on stealth, kinematic performance and information-processing capabilities.
The government has likely chosen the F-35 as it scored the highest out of 100 points across these categories. Although the MoD has received the request from both inside and outside Japan for the exact scores for each aircraft, its unclear if the ministry will ever disclose them.
For Tokyo, it is an absolute must to procure fifth-generation stealth fighters as soon as possible. The issue revolves around the nation's air defenses.
Japan has 28 radar sites, all of which are effective in detecting third- and fourth- generation fighters from a long distance. However, Tokyo is still unsure how they will perform with fifth-generation fighters - China and Russia will deploy the Chengdu J-20 and Sukhoi PAK-FA T-50, both fifth-generation jet fighters, in the near future.
"The F-35 has exceptional air-to-air capabilities based on its stealth, full fighter aerodynamic performance, advanced sensors, sensor fusion, and advanced datalinks," Lockheed Martin said in an e-mail interview to Asia Times Online. "US government analytical models show that when flying against an advanced threat aircraft the F-35 is six times better than 4th Generation F-16, F/A-18 and Eurofighter aircraft."
The US defense contractor said this was measured by a term called loss-exchange ratio (LER), which is defined as enemy aircraft destroyed divided by friendly aircraft destroyed.
"The LER for the F-35 is six times better than the LER for fourth-generation aircraft," the company added.
Why not Eurofighter?
There have been fierce debates among military experts over whether the F-35 is really best suited to meet Japan's requirements for an air superiority fighter in terms of military operational capabilities.
First of all, more than a few defense analysts have argued that since the F-35 is a bomber-type stealth fighter, it is optimized for a strike and ground attack role that sees it attacking in darkness and slipping through radar nets. For this reason, they have argued, countries such as Japan which maintain an exclusively defense-oriented policy, the F-35 is less preferable. Rather, the defense-oriented Eurofighter, which has strength in air-to-air dogfights, is preferable.
Countering this point, Lockheed Martin said, "The F-35 was designed and built to counter the most advanced airborne and ground-based threats - exactly the air defense environment that Japan faces today and in the future."
Another contentious point is that the F-35 is single-engined while the Eurofighter and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are both twin-engined jets. For maritime nations such as Japan surrounded by oceans, a single-engine fighter could be risky in terms of redundancy to back up the entire engine system. Twin-engined fighters such as Eurofighters can fly even when malfunctions or is hit by the enemy.
However, when pressed on this point, Lockheed Martin said, "Single engine technology is so reliable today that the two engine versus one debate for safety reasons is no longer valid."
"As evidence, the US Navy and all partner nations have decided to buy and operate the F-35," it said. "This includes nations who have extensive maritime environments such the UK, Australia, Canada, Norway, and Italy."
The F-35 has been developed jointly by nine nations: the US, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey. Potential buyers of this stealth fighter currently include Israel, Singapore, Japan and South Korea.
The MoD plans to deploy four new jets in fiscal year 2016, with plans to acquire a total of 40-50 aircraft at a cost of around US$4 billion. Japanese media have reported the total cost, including purchasing, maintenance and repairs, is estimated to come to about 1 trillion yen (US$12.8 billion).
Lockheed Martin has repeatedly said Tokyo could get the F-35 fighter jets at an average cost of US$65 million each, as of 2010 figures.
The JSF program, which the nine nations involved have invested over US$50 billion in over the years, has faced tough scrutiny by US lawmakers in recent years due to defects, schedule delays and cost overruns. Most recently, an internal Pentagon report called the "Concurrency Quick Look Review" found that the JSF program could cause further delays and cost spikes. The report was made public by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) - a non-partisan non-profit government watchdog - earlier this month.
However, Lockheed officials were still upbeat. "The US government and Lockheed Martin are highly confident that we can deliverer the F-35 to Japan as early as 2016," the company said. "We base this confidence on the fact that we are currently delivering production F-35 aircraft today, that the first five years of F-35 production funding have been placed under contract, and that the F-35 production system has sufficient capacity to accommodate Japanese deliveries. "
Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke
(Copyright 2011 Asia Times
Las vanmorgen nog (weet niet meer waar) dat Boeing nog vol in de race was
wishfull thinking ?? van Boeing
Ik dacht dat die Japanners slimmer waren. Met de huidige info kies je toch niet voor die F35. De redenatie van Boeing was veel logischer. Nu een F18 ter vervanging van de F4 en dan later misschien de F15 vervangen door de F35.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 19/12/2011 | 13:23 uur
Ik dacht dat die Japanners slimmer waren. Met de huidige info kies je toch niet voor die F35. De redenatie van Boeing was veel logischer. Nu een F18 ter vervanging van de F4 en dan later misschien de F15 vervangen door de F35.
De kogel is nog niet officieel door de kerk.. we zullen het morgen zien.
De Boeing optie is wel de meest efficiënte voor Japan
tenzij de Japanners de F15 willen gaan vervangen door hun
eigen Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin en de kennis die ze "nu" gaan opdoen met de F35 hierin verwerken.
Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_ATD-X
D-day for jet deals
By David Coates
Published on Monday 19 December 2011 14:09
An announcement on a pair of multi-billion pound fighter jet contracts will be made before the end of the year, defence chiefs have confirmed.
The Eurofighter Typhoon, parts for which are made at BAE Systems' bases in Warton and Samlesbury, near Preston, is in the running for a £5.1bn deal to sell up to 40 aircraft to Japan and a £7bn deal to sell 126 planes to India.
An announcement on the Japan deal had been expected to be made following a meeting of the nation's security council last week with intense speculation the US F-35 had won the contract.
A BAE Systems spokesman dismissed the suggestion as "purely speculation."
A spokesman for the Defence Ministry said: "The ministry has made no decision yet. A meeting of minister, vice minister and parliamentary secretaries has not even been held yet."
Reports in India suggested the decision to award its contract, which is in a two-way battle with French firm Rafale for the work, will be made before the end of 2011, but is likely to be made after Christmas.
Parts for both Eurofighter and the F-35, formerly the Joint Strike Fighter, are built in Lancashire with the aft fuselage and empennages and the horizontal and vertical tail fins of the F-35 built by BAE for lead contractor, Lockheed Martin.
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/lep-business/d_day_for_jet_deals_1_4073196
UAE's Rafale deal is no mirage
Posted 19 December 2011
After a long and often tortuous process, the UAE is understood to be in the final stage of negotiations for the procurement of about 60 Dassault Rafale fighters with many industry insiders predicting that contracts could be signed during the Dubai Airshow. Jon Lake reports.
On September 8, Les Echos reported that Dassault had sent a negotiating team to the UAE 'last weekend' to wrap up the final details of its technical and commercial Rafale proposal, apparently due for delivery.
Until now, the UAE's plans to replace its Dassault Mirage 2000-9 fighters have been slow to come to fruition, though French president Nicolas Sarkozy's office first announced that the UAE government was in discussions to buy the twin-engined Rafale as long ago as June 2008, after the French fighter had originally lost out to the F-16 Fighting Falcon in 1998 (the Rafale having been shortlisted with the F-16 in September 1996).
The F-16E/F was never likely to fulfil the UAE's fighter need on its own, as the nation needed a tactical fighter that could carry categories of weapons that the US would never integrate on the aircraft in order to avoid upsetting Israeli and other regional sensibilities.
The Mirage 2000 was retained in the UAE inventory (and indeed the existing fleet was augmented by the purchase of new Mirage 2000-9s, and by the conversion of existing aircraft to -9 standards) specifically to give the UAE AF&AD a platform that could carry weapons like the Al Hakim stand-off PGM (though in the event this would later be integrated on the F-16E/F) and the Black Shaheen Cruise missile – a variant of MBDA's Scalp/Storm Shadow family.
The UAE needs a Mirage 2000 replacement that will also provide this kind of capability, either with the existing Black Shaheen, or with a new weapon in the same class.
US offers to provide the Super Hornet with SLAM-ER missiles probably did not meet the UAE's aspirations for stand-off missile range, and certainly did not match the existing range capability of Black Shaheen.
The UAE never ran a full competition to select a fighter to replace the Mirage 2000s and simply opened negotiations with Dassault aimed at acquiring an improved and upgraded Rafale.
The UAE has periodically looked at competing aircraft and has talked to other suppliers – fuelling regular reports of a change of heart over the French fighter. But despite requesting technical information on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in September 2010, the more recent reports of negotiations with Lockheed Martin for the supply of more F-16E/F Desert Falcons (because the French offering of an advanced Rafale version was reportedly seen as too expensive), and optimistic noises emanating from the Eurofighter consortium, the UAE's eyes have kept returning to the Rafale, which has continued to be aggressively and energetically marketed to the Emiratis.
In mid-December 2010 Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, crown prince of Abu Dhabi and commander of the UAE armed forces, requested that France renew its proposal to sell up to 60 Rafales to the UAE during a visit to Paris.
France has been assiduous in enhancing and improving its relationship and military co-operation with the UAE and has established a permanent military presence in the Gulf, forming Base Aerienne 104 with a rotational deployment of Rafales and Mirage 2000s as a French enclave at Al Dhafra airbase, and also setting up a naval station at the port of Mina Zayed.
Many insiders now seem to accept that the Rafale is a 'done deal' in the UAE.
This is surprising in some respects as, although the Rafale performed extremely impressively during recent operations over Libya, the UAE has made no secret of the fact that it requires an aircraft significantly more advanced than the current Rafale versions in service with the Armée de l'Air.
It specifies a longer-range active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with ground moving target detection and tracking (GMTI/GMTT), 'interlaced' air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, a more capable version of the Spectra electronic warfare suite, integration with MBDA's Meteor long-range missile and, crucially, with more powerful versions of the Snecma M88 engines, producing more than nine tonnes of thrust (about 1.5 tonnes more than the current engine).
Over time, Meteor integration and some AESA and Spectra improvements have become a funded part of the core Rafale programme, but the Armée de l'Air has no stated or funded requirement for a more powerful engine, which the UAE reportedly still wants and which many analysts believe would be essential for long range air-to-ground operations with heavy weapons in the region (and certainly to allow carriage of a three-missile heavy strike loadout using the Black Shaheen). Nor are planned French radar and Spectra improvements believed to be sufficient to meet UAE requirements.
There may also have been a stumbling block in that the UAE is understood to have demanded that the existing Mirage 2000-9s must be 'bought back' by the French either for resale or for use by the French forces at an estimated unit price of €20 million – equivalent to about €1.2 billion for the whole fleet.
Historically, Dassault has tended not to use its own resources to fund military aircraft development, preferring its government clients to do so. In this case, the cost of developing the upgrades required by the UAE has been estimated at 4-5 billion euros – or more modestly at €2 billion ($2.9 billion), a sum which the UAE has reportedly expected the French side to pay.
Though the UAE has previously invested in the development of more advanced versions of fighters that it has bought (funding the development of both the Mirage 2000-9 and of the Block 60 F-16E/F in return for a share of profits from any export of aircraft with the features it had paid to develop), it seems not to have the appetite to do so for a modernised and advanced version of the Rafale, or it may be disinclined to be the launch customer and 'guinea pig' for such a variant.
The UAE's licensing-for-exports deals associated with the Mirage 2000 earned hundreds of millions of dollars when Mirage 2000-9 technology was sold to other customers, and similar arrangements regarding the F-16E/F promised to earn the Emirates more if other countries buy similarly upgraded versions of the F-16E/F. But being a launch customer can bring disadvantages and problems and the UAE may have wished to avoid these, or may have felt that further Rafale export sales are unlikely.
But whatever the reason for the UAE's unwillingness to fund the required Rafale improvements, it seems as though the deal is 'back on', perhaps with the UAE having scaled back its requirements, or perhaps with the French government having decided that it is willing to 'bite the bullet' and fund the necessary development in order to try to win what could be a pivotal first export order for the Rafale.
http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/uae-s-rafale-deal-is-no-mirage.html?utm_source=googleNews&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=news_feed
The Last F-22
December 19, 2011: The 187th, and last, F-22 fighter was completed on December 13th. This last aircraft will be sent to a squadron in Alaska which lost one in an accident last year. The manufacturer is not going to scrap or sell off the tools and equipment used to produce the F-22, but will store the stuff for a while, in the hope that production may resume eventually.
Congress passed a law forbidding the export of the F-22 fighter, but three nations (Australia, Japan and Israel) still sought to buy some. Efforts to change the law have failed. At one time there was a similar prohibition to the export of the F-16, and that law was changed. One reason for the law was the fear that F-22 technical and operational secrets would fall into the hands of a hostile power. China has acquired at least one F-16 from Pakistan, Russia was able to acquire an F-14 from Iran, and during the Cold War the United States got possession of several Russian aircraft (including a MiG-25) flown in by a defectors. There is a chance the F-35 could end up in enemy hands, even with efforts to prevent unauthorized technology transfer, but the technology loss would not be as great as losing an F-22.
The F-22 has performance that is far superior to that of any other aircraft in service, which is why several foreign air forces would like some. The combination of speed, advanced electronics, and stealth technology has created such a decisive advantage that F-22s are often matched up against as many as six F-15s to ensure their pilots face a challenge during training. So why is the F-35, with somewhat lower performance, getting all the export orders?
The first reason is price. The F-22 costs up to $200 million each (without even counting the huge R&D costs). The F-35 costs less than half as much (although that edge is eroding). This is one reason the U.S. is pushing exports of the F-35. This is why many more F-16s were exported, compared to the F-15. In any event, the F-35 will outclass a Rafale, F-15E, or Eurofighter, but not the F-22. The U.S. Air Force is using the F-22 as part of a high-end/low-end mix with the F-35, much like the F-15 and F-16 were the combination in the 1990s, only the F-22/F-35 combination will be much harder to detect, and defend against.
The enormous edge of the F-22, and its usefulness as part of a high/low mix, can be a decisive advantage in many situations. That could cause problems. Israel might use F-22s for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, and one might be lost. That would be an intelligence disaster of the first magnitude. Japan has had problems in the past in protecting secret U.S. military technology.
The U.S. Air Force saw export sales as a way to keep the F-22 production line active, giving it more time to persuade Congress to allow more to be built for the U.S. That did not work. Despite the high cost of the F-22, Russia is developing the similar T-50, and China the similar J-20. But neither of these aircraft is as capable, or as expensive, as the F-22. Neither of these aircraft is in service. The F-22 began development in the late 1980s, first flew in 1997 and entered service in 2005. The F-22 is expected to remain in service for at least 30 years. And for much of that time, the F-22 will be the best, if also the least numerous, jet fighter on the planet.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20111219.aspx
Japan koopt 42 JSF-toestellen
»
Japan investeert 3 miljard euro in de JSF
US Air Force - Flickr / Creative Commons by-nc Toegevoegd: dinsdag 20 dec 2011, 04:20
Japan heeft gekozen voor de JSF als zijn nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuig. Japan koopt voor zo'n 3 miljard euro 42 toestellen.
De order is een opsteker voor producent Lockheed Martin. Vorige week eiste de VS dat de productie van de JSF wordt vertraagd omdat bij testen scheurtjes en andere zwakke plekken zijn ontdekt.
Zuid-Korea
Verwacht wordt dat nu ook Zuid-Korea de JSF zal kopen. Zuid-Korea denkt over de aankoop van 60 toestellen.
De landen zijn geïnteresseerd in de JSF, mede omdat China werkt aan de ontwikkeling van een vergelijkbaar toestel. Nederland heeft twee testtoestellen besteld
Bron: NOS
Japan picks Lockheed F-35 fighter as allies stress tight ties
(2011-12-20)
(Reuters) -
By Kiyoshi Takenaka
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan picked Lockheed Martin's F-35 jet as its next mainstay fighter Tuesday, choosing the aircraft over combat-proven but less stealthy rivals, as concern simmers over North Korea and as China introduces its own stealth fighters.
The decision came as Japan and the United States stressed that their security alliance was tight in the face of worry about an unstable North Korea after the death of its leader, Kim Jong-il.
Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa said the decision to buy 42 of the stealth aircraft, valued by analysts at more than $7 billion, would help Japan adjust to a changing security environment after Monday's announcement of the death of the 69-year-old North Korean leader.
"The security environment surrounding future fighter jets is transforming. The F-35 has capabilities that can firmly respond to the changes," Ichikawa told reporters.
Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon hailed Japan's selection of the F-35, saying it would help establish a strategic, conventional deterrent in the Asia-Pacific region, where concern simmers about instability under Kim's successor, his untested youngest son, Kim Jong-un.
"The F-35 Program Office looks forward to strengthening partnerships with Japan, and contributing to enhanced security throughout the Asia Pacific region," the Pentagon said in a statement after Japan announced its decision.
The F-35, which is in an early production stage, competed against Boeing's F/A-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon, made by a consortium of European companies including BAE Systems.
Experts said the decision to opt for the U.S. plane, made informally well before news of Kim's death, reflected Japan's desire to tighten U.S. ties in the face of concern over China's rising military might and other regional uncertainties.
"It reflects Japan's recognition on a variety of levels that at a time of greater insecurity, it needs to be more deeply engaged with the United States on security issues," said Brad Glosserman, executive director at Honolulu's Pacific Forum CSIS.
In a sign the allies meant to stand together, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke by telephone to Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and underscored the U.S. commitment to its allies, the White House said.
Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura told a news conference that Washington and its two close Asia allies, Japan and South Korea, were likely to hold high-level talks on North Korea soon. "The date has not been decided but it will be at the soonest possible opportunity," he said.
U.S.-Japan relations had frayed after the novice Democratic Party of Japan took power in 2009 for the first time, vowing to recalibrate the alliance on a more equal basis and attempting, unsuccessfully, to keep a pledge to move a U.S. military base off Japan's Okinawa island.
Noda, who took office last September, has firmly shifted gears back to a more traditional security stance.
"Once again, Japan's security policy is right back to the post-war Japanese mainstream -- the decision that the U.S. is Japan's best security partner," Glosserman said.
Japan had been widely expected to choose the F-35 due to its advanced stealth capability and U.S. origin. Stealth technology has drawn much attention in Japan since China, which has a long-running territorial dispute with Japan, in January confirmed it had held its first test flight of the J-20 stealth fighter jet.
Despite Sino-Japanese tension over territorial feuds, maritime resources and a bitter wartime past, Noda will nonetheless be seeking China's cooperation in coping with North Korea when he visits Beijing on December 25-26.
"Instructions from the prime minister were that we need to establish close cooperation and exchange of information with the United States, South Korea and China, so we will seek to work with China on this understanding," Fujimura said.
BOOST FOR LOCKHEED MARTIN
Japan's choice of the F-35 comes as a shot in the arm for Lockheed Martin's F-35 program, which has been restructured twice in the past two years and is expected to boost the odds that South Korea will follow suit with its own order for 60 fighters. Japan will pay 9.9 billion yen per fighter including backup parts in the initial stage of procurement.
"This program badly needed an endorsement like this, particularly one from a technically respected customer. But there are still many complications, especially price tag and work share demands," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the U.S.-based Teal Group.
He said the F-35 program was facing scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and officials who need to trim hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget over the next decade.
Boeing's loss of the order would be a real setback for the company's prospects in the fighter business, especially since there were few other large competitions open anymore, said Loren Thompson of Lexington Institute.
"The market place is signaling to Boeing that its days in the fighter business may be numbered," Thompson said.
Japanese firms Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd , IHI Corp and Mitsubishi Electric Corp will participate in the production and maintenance of the F-35, the Defense Ministry said.
A Lockheed Martin official said Japanese defense contractors could become global suppliers to the F-35 stealth fighter program if Japan's government decided to ease a decades-old ban on exports of military equipment.
"The Japanese aerospace industry is world class, so if there was a relaxation (of the export ban) it would be very logical for them to have the opportunity and indeed it would be a very good opportunity to participate in the F35 global supply chain," Dave Scott, director of international business development for the stealth fighter, told Reuters.
Japan is considering easing the export ban, a step that might allow its contractors to bid for contracts in the United States, which spends 10 times as much on its military.
Ending the ban would also allow Japan to buy aircraft, ships, missiles and other equipment more cheaply by allowing domestic manufacturers to tap overseas markets and lower production costs through economies of scale.
(Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa and Carol Bohan in Washington, Tim Kelly and Shinichi Saoshiro in Towriting by Leika Kihara and Linda Sieg; Editing by Edwina Gibbs and Robert Birsel)
© Copyright 2011, Reuters
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/12/2011 | 07:13 uur
Japan koopt voor zo'n 3 miljard euro 42 toestellen.
dit lijkt mij een kale stuksprijs van alleen het toestel :
€ 71,4 miljoen Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/12/2011 | 07:23 uur
Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa said the decision to buy 42 of the stealth aircraft, valued by analysts at more than $7 billion,
En dit lijkt me een alles in 1 prijs, dus met onderhoud en ondersteuning :
$ 166,7 miljoen = € 127,8 miljoen Euro
Lockheed Martin F-35 Wins Japan F-X
Japan has picked Lockheed Martin's F-35 as its next mainstay fighter, Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa said.
Its choice of the radar-evading plane over combat proven but less stealthy rivals comes as uncertainty simmers over neighboring North Korea after the death of its leader Kim Jong-il and as China aims to introduce its own stealth fighter jets.
The decision will be a shot in the arm for the F-35 program, which has been restructured twice in the past two years, and could increase the odds that South Korea will follow suit with its own order for 60 fighters.
"This program badly needed an endorsement like this, particularly one from a technically respected customer. But there are still many complications, especially price tag and work share demands," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group.
He noted the F-35 is facing tough scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and defense officials who need to trim hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. defense budget over the next decade.
The F-35, which is in an early production stage, was competing against Boeing's F/A-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon, made by a consortium of European companies including BAE Systems, for a deal that could be worth up to $8 billion.
Japan counts the U.S. as its key security ally and regularly conducts joint military drills with U.S. forces, and had been widely expected to choose the F-35.
The defense ministry said Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and IHI would participate in the production of the F-35.
Fighter jets' stealth technology has drawn heavy attention in Japan since China, which has a long-running territorial dispute with Japan, confirmed in January it had held its first test flight of the J-20 stealth fighter jet.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/12/19/awx_12_19_2011_p0-408276.xml&headline=Lockheed Martin F-35 Wins Japan F-X
nu weer een bedrag van $ 8 miljard dollar voor 42 toestellen = € 146,1 miljoen Euro per stuk (alles in 1 prijs)
bijna elk nieuwsbericht heeft andere bedragen, maar die € 65 miljoen per stuk ben ik nog niet tegen gekomen
"Japan will pay 9.9 billion yen per fighter including backup parts in the initial stage of procurement".
© Copyright 2011, Reuters
1 Japanese yen = 0.0098578454 Euros
9900.000.000 x 0.0098578454 = € 97.592.669,46
Kortom wederom een ander getal....
Citaat van: dudge op 20/12/2011 | 09:26 uur
Wat er dus op duit dat het werkelijke bedrag wederom geheim is, of onbekend. Ook de jappen kunnen nog wel eens voor een (financiële ) verrassing komen te staan.
Volgens mij gaan zij zowel financieel als planmatig flink de boot in en is er blijkbaar een zeer zware Amerikaanse lobby geweest om dit er doorheen gedrukt te krijgen. Zeker als je bekijkt dat er nog zo veel constructie problemen zijn en dat men qua testen weer gaat uitstellen. Ben benieuwd wanneer de eerste F4's naar beneden gaan vallen, of wanneer de Japanners ze aan de grond gaan houden en een "fighter gap" hebben. Ik vind het opvallend dat ze die risisco's durven te nemen.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 20/12/2011 | 13:50 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 20/12/2011 | 09:26 uur
Wat er dus op duit dat het werkelijke bedrag wederom geheim is, of onbekend. Ook de jappen kunnen nog wel eens voor een (financiële ) verrassing komen te staan.
Volgens mij gaan zij zowel financieel als planmatig flink de boot in en is er blijkbaar een zeer zware Amerikaanse lobby geweest om dit er doorheen gedrukt te krijgen. Zeker als je bekijkt dat er nog zo veel constructie problemen zijn en dat men qua testen weer gaat uitstellen. Ben benieuwd wanneer de eerste F4's naar beneden gaan vallen, of wanneer de Japanners ze aan de grond gaan houden en een "fighter gap" hebben. Ik vind het opvallend dat ze die risisco's durven te nemen.
Ik vind het ook niet zo'h handige beslissing. Als ik als Japan, dan toch een absoluute voorkeur voor Amerikaans heb, dan zou ik als interim de F18E Block II verkozen hebben, niet alleen op prijs maar ook op (directe) beschikbaarheid om vervolgens de F35 serieus te laten mee doen in de competitie voor de vervanging van de F15.
Persoonlijk denk ik dat de F35 keuze twee ledig is:
1. Ze krijgen een vervanging voor hun F4's (al is dit geen één op één)
2. de Japanse F15 wordt vervangen door Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin omdat dit wel een kist lijkt te worden met A2A capaciteiten (gezien het F22 export verbod) waarbij de opgedane kennis met de F35 in dit concept verwerkt zal worden.
Als de Japanners, ook als F15 vervanger, zouden kiezen voor de F35 dan zou dat betekenen dat dit land zijn, nu nog sublieme, air dominance/superiority capaciteiten opgeeft en zich zelf ondergeschikt maakt aan toekomstige dreigingen van modellen als de SU35, J20 (?) en PAK-FA.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/12/2011 | 14:16 uur
2. de Japanse F15 wordt vervangen door Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin omdat dit wel een kist lijkt te worden met A2A capaciteiten (gezien het F22 export verbod) waarbij de opgedane kennis met de F35 in dit concept verwerkt zal worden.
hoe wil je kennis opdoen met een mislukt toestel, een beter optie is dan de F15SE kopen en een prototype van de YF23 erbij?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread236040/pg1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23
Lockheed Martin Wins Japan Jet Fighter Contract Over Boeing, Eurofighter
By Chris Cooper, Sachiko Sakamaki and Gopal Ratnam - Dec 20, 2011 9:50 AM GMT+0100 .
Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) won a contract from Japan to supply F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the aircraft's first win in a competitive tender.
The U.S. contractor will build 42 of the planes for Japan, Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa told reporters in Tokyo today. The F-35 was shortlisted against Boeing Co. (BA)'s F-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter GmbH's Typhoon.
The deal comes as the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il spurs uncertainty about stability on the Korean peninsula, where 1.7 million troops from North Korea, South Korea and the U.S. are stationed. Japan, which has the world's sixth-largest defense budget, has been upgrading air defenses as North Korea improves its ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons program, and as both Russia and China develop stealth fighters.
"From now on, we really have to think about distances and air force strength in Northeast Asia," said Hideshi Takesada, a professor of international relations at Seoul's Yonsei University. "This decision reflects the need for stealth and long-distance combat capabilities."
The timing of the announcement wasn't related to Kim's death, Takesada said.
The U.S. said yesterday it is consulting with South Korea and Japan following Kim's death, and Japan said it was strengthening coast-guard patrols. North Korea conducted a short-range missile test over its east coast yesterday, Yonhap News reported, citing South Korean officials.
Boeing F-4s
Japan's F-35s will replace Boeing F-4s, which were last assembled in the country in 1981. Japan had a total of 362 fighter jets as of March 31, according to the defense ministry's website.
The initial contract with Lockheed is for four jets in the fiscal year beginning April 1, the Bethesda, Maryland-based contractor said today in a statement. The company will begin delivering jets to Japan in 2016, Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for business development, said on a conference call.
Japan will pay 8.9 billion yen ($114 million) for each of the first four jets, according to Masaki Fukasawa, director of aircraft division at the defense ministry. The nation's total cost for the purchase, operation and maintenance of the 42 fighters is estimated at 1.6 trillion yen over 20 years, Fukasawa said.
The decision bolsters the F-35 as delays and government austerity measures imperil orders in the U.K., Australia and other countries that helped develop it. The U.S. is the plane's largest customer with more than 2,440 orders in a $382 billion plan that forms the Pentagon's biggest weapons program.
'Big Boost'
"It is a big boost for the program politically," said James Hardy, a London-based analyst at IHS Jane's DS Forecast. "Many partner nations have committed to buying the F-35, but to have it win an external competition will certainly help take the pressure off."
Japan follows three U.S. military service branches and Israel in choosing the F-35 to modernize their fighter fleets, O'Bryan said. Lockheed has about 700 F-35 orders from the program's eight overseas partner nations, which also include Italy, Holland, Turkey, Norway, Denmark and Canada. Israel and Singapore also have lower-level involvement in the plane.
"We expect more countries to follow suit," O'Bryan said.
South Korea plans to call for bids for as many as 60 jet fighters in the first quarter of 2012, and Singapore is likely to follow in the near future, he said. The plane is the only jet with production expected to last beyond 2035, he said.
U.S. Delays
The F-35 probably won the Japan contest because of its stealth technology and the nation's traditional reliance on U.S. military hardware, said Hardy at Jane's. Eurofighter is a venture between BAE Systems Plc (BA/), Finmeccanica SpA and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co.
Japan also considered the amount of production work that could be undertaken locally as it seeks to develop its domestic defense industry. Japanese companies will do final assembly as well as work on components, O'Bryan said.
The work "will transform Japanese industry," O'Bryan said. "They get advanced composite work, automated machining with tight tolerances associated with a stealth airplane."
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (7011) will be involved in work on aircraft bodies, IHI Corp. (7013) on engines, and Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (6503) on mission-related avionics, according to defense ministry documents.
Behind Schedule
Defense Minister Ichikawa said the F-35 was selected primarily for its capabilities and also based on costs, participation by Japanese companies, and logistical support.
In the U.S., the F-35 program is five years behind schedule and 64 percent over cost estimates. At least some orders may also be endangered by a congressional supercommittee's failure to agree on ways to reduce the federal deficit as this could trigger mandatory cuts in the Defense Department's budget.
A Pentagon report also last month advocated a slowdown in procurement of F-35s because the aircraft's design had proven more unstable during testing than anticipated. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta remains committed to program, his spokesman said Dec. 8.
India is also due to make a decision soon on a contract for 126 fighters. It has shortlisted Eurofighter's Typhoon and Dassault Aviation SA (AM)'s Rafale, after eliminating planes including Lockheed's F-16 and Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/lockheed-martin-wins-japan-jet-fighter-contract-over-boeing-eurofighter.html
Citaat van: Ace1 op 20/12/2011 | 17:19 uur
hoe wil je kennis opdoen met een mislukt toestel, een beter optie is dan de F15SE kopen en een prototype van de YF23 erbij?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread236040/pg1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23
Je limineerd de fouten uit het ontwerp en gebruikt alleen de goede ontwikkelingen (scheeld wellicht een berg aan eigen R&D kosten)
De 2 prototypes van de YF23 staan inmiddels in het museum. Over dit concept wordt wel gezecht dat het in (vrijwel) alle opzichten superieur aan de F22 was (is). In dat kader kan je het dus helemaal vergeten dat de Ameikanen hiervan de blauwdrukken verkopen.
Dus die Japanners hebben een fixed price van $114 miljoen voor de eerste 4. Ben meer benieuwd hoe duur de laatste 38 gaan worden.
Die F4 moet dus minstens 35 jaar oud gaan worden. Je zou denken dat men meer haast heeft met de vervanging daarvan. Als die Chinezen over 3-4 jaar moeilijk gaan doen.....
Citaat van: Enforcer op 20/12/2011 | 19:45 uur
Dus die Japanners hebben een fixed price van $114 miljoen voor de eerste 4. Ben meer benieuwd hoe duur de laatste 38 gaan worden.
Die F4 moet dus minstens 35 jaar oud gaan worden. Je zou denken dat men meer haast heeft met de vervanging daarvan. Als die Chinezen over 3-4 jaar moeilijk gaan doen.....
Dan hebben de Japanners nog steeds een behoorlijk aantal F15J's, een kist waar de gemiddelde kist van Russische en/of Chineese makelij niet zo maar mee weg loopt.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 20/12/2011 | 19:45 uur
Dus die Japanners hebben een fixed price van $114 miljoen voor de eerste 4. Ben meer benieuwd hoe duur de laatste 38 gaan worden.
Die F4 moet dus minstens 35 jaar oud gaan worden. Je zou denken dat men meer haast heeft met de vervanging daarvan. Als die Chinezen over 3-4 jaar moeilijk gaan doen.....
De chinezen vliegen pas vanaf 11 januari met het prototype van de J20 en dat duurt minimaal nog wel 10 jaar voordat dat de J20 in operationele vorm is.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 20/12/2011 | 21:34 uurduurt minimaal nog wel 10 jaar voordat dat de J20 in operationele vorm is.
Dat is een aanname op basis van de Westerse manier van werken. Maar wie zegt dat de Chinezen niet in staat zijn dit veel sneller te doen door minder eisen te stellen en een toestel met minder mogelijkheden te ontwikkelen, maar wel veel efficiënter te bouwen.
China richt zich tot nu toe meer op kwantiteit dan kwaliteit. Als ze minder eisen stellen en voor massa gaan heeft dat ook impact op snelheid van introductie. Ik zou er in ieder geval niet zo maar vanuit gaan dat de Chinezen nog 10 jaar nodig hebben.
Japanese F-35 buy to benefit Australia?
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 4:27 pm, Wednesday December 21 2011
Lockheed Martin says Japan's selection of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will benefit Australia's New Air Combat Capability (NACC) aspirations by providing greater weight to production numbers at the same time as Australia's aircraft are being built, as well as providing lower logistics costs in our region.
Speaking from Fort Worth by phone to Australian Aviation on December 20, vice president, F-35 Program Integration and Business Development Steve O'Bryan said the Japanese order "reinforces the value proposition" of the JSF, and provides "a credible fifth generation strategic deterrent" in the region that will be "relevant for the next 40 years."
Australian suppliers to the F-35 global supply chain will also benefit from the order as Lockheed Martin's forecast order numbers are realised.
Lockheed Martin also hopes the JASDF order could be a precursor for a much larger order to fulfil the nascent FXX requirement to replace more than 150 JASDF F-15Js from 2020. O'Bryan said that, while Japan's FXX timings hadn't been finalised yet, upcoming programs such as the FX-III requirement in South Korea and plans by Singapore to replace early F-16s were looking promising for the F-35A. He said Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia and USAF, US Navy and US Marine Corps forces based in the region would "stand shoulder to shoulder" with the aircraft, and that "all the world's great air forces are making the choice of the F-35."
http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/12/japanese-f-35-buy-to-benefit-australia/
Als ieder land een aantal F35's besteld met de belofte dat het componenten mag gaan maken, dan wordt de spoeling aan componenten per land wel weer erg dun.
Japan had beter F-15SE kunnen bestellen als vervanger voor hun F-4
Konden ze goed aansluiten bij de opleidingen, onderhoud e.d. van hun vliegers voor hun huidige F-15J vloot en het huidige materiaal/materieel
en kunnen ze later hun F-15J's vervangen door hun eigen Mitsubishi ATD-X Shinshin
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 20/12/2011 | 22:58 uur
Dat is een aanname op basis van de Westerse manier van werken. Maar wie zegt dat de Chinezen niet in staat zijn dit veel sneller te doen door minder eisen te stellen en een toestel met minder mogelijkheden te ontwikkelen, maar wel veel efficiënter te bouwen.
China richt zich tot nu toe meer op kwantiteit dan kwaliteit. Als ze minder eisen stellen en voor massa gaan heeft dat ook impact op snelheid van introductie. Ik zou er in ieder geval niet zo maar vanuit gaan dat de Chinezen nog 10 jaar nodig hebben.
Sluit ik me volledig bij aan!
Seoul Will Be Watching
In English-speaking countries, people like to keep up with the Joneses. For South Korean defense ministry officials, it is important to keep up with the Tanakas.
That is one reason why Japan's expected order for the Lockheed Martin F-35 is likely to result in sales of more than the 42 fighters that industry officials anticipated Tokyo would buy. Another is that the aircraft chosen for Japan's fighter program for this decade may well be built throughout the 2020s, long after the initial requirement is filled.
A Japanese order for F-35s, especially if followed promptly by one from South Korea, will bolster early demand for the stealth fighter, potentially offsetting reductions in purchases by other customers, such as the U.S. and cash-strapped European countries. Both North Asian countries urgently need to replace old F-4 Phantoms—and, with the F-35, both would run the risk that the troubled program could force them to wait longer than planned.
Japan's decision, leaked to leading local media and expected to be announced before the end of the year, is also likely to confirm that Japan has drawn a line under its 55 years of full-scale fighter manufacturing. With the F-35, Japan is likely to join Italy in assembling the aircraft, but industry officials say the need to protect stealth secrets means that the F-35 cannot be completely manufactured outside of the U.S.—and doing so would be extraordinarily costly anyway.
Boeing and Eurofighter, offering the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Typhoon, respectively, have been Lockheed Martin's rivals in Japan's F-X competition. Their aircraft have been available for extensive manufacturing in Japan.
The same two companies now stand at heightened risk of losing the similar but larger competition to supply 60 fighters to South Korea. One issue on the minds of the competitors is that South Korean defense ministry officials would be loath to buy an aircraft that the country's highly nationalistic politicians and voters would criticize as less modern than Japan's. The F-35 looks like a safer buy—even though, in both countries, critics will likely question the wisdom of choosing the immature design, especially after the latest revelations of development troubles in the leaked "quick look review" report (see p. 30).
A U.S. defense official says no changes are being made to the F-35 development schedule as a result of the report. These issues were known to the program office and contractor, and fixes are being worked on.
In South Korea, Boeing is offering the F-15SE Silent Eagle, derived from the F‑15K, which is already partly built there. Again, the Silent Eagle and the Typhoon promise to sustain South Korea's domestic fighter production base, whereas the F-35 would leave plants, engineers and mechanics looking for other work.
Japanese industry has urged that the new fighter chosen be built until the late 2020s. Even at the low production rates typical in Japan, that would result in deliveries of perhaps 120 fighters, partly replacing Japan's Boeing F-15J Eagles. Under the i3 program, Japan is working on technologies for another fighter that would be built starting in the 2030s.
Reasons for Japan's F-35 choice include its stealth and suitability for information-networking, says the Yomiuri newspaper, adding that the Japanese government is satisfied with U.S. willingness to share information with Japanese manufacturers. It is taboo in Japan to discuss strike missions, but another key advantage of the F-35 is clearly its ability to penetrate hostile defenses, notably those of North Korea. The F-4s are tasked with air-to-air missions, but Lockheed Martin promotes the F-35's air-to-ground capability.
The order for the first four aircraft, fully imported, should be in the budget for the year beginning April 1, 2012, with deliveries starting in 2016. Japanese companies will help make later units. Unless Japan relaxes its ban on arms exports, it cannot supply parts for F-35s built for other countries—although the desire to sustain the industry and hold down costs could lead to a change in policy. Japan launched a review of the ban last year, possibly in anticipation of an F-35 order.
In the run-up to the decision, Lockheed Martin bolstered its bid by offering Japan manufacture of several F-35 components as well as final assembly and checkout, integration and test, depot-level sustainment, repair and overhaul. The assembly plant will cost about $1 billion, industry officials say. Japan will also be able to assemble the F-35's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, although any customer will need to do that if it is to overhaul the turbofan.
The Japanese air force originally hoped to replace its last Phantoms in the fiscal year beginning in April 2009 and lobbied the U.S. to be allowed to buy the Lockheed Martin F-22. The replacement program slipped even as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and suppliers such as IHI Corp. and Mitsubishi Electric Corp. faced the end of F-2 strike fighter production. The last F-2 was handed over in September.
The manufacturers proposed building more F-2s to keep themselves busy, but in the past few weeks it has become more clear why that was not a possibility. Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa told the Diet on Nov. 9 that more F-2s would cost ¥15 billion ($193 million) each. The F-2, based on but larger than the Lockheed Martin F-16, has also been criticized as too small for further development.
The Japanese order, and its potential South Korean follow-on, have unusual value to the program because the two countries and the manufacturer are all keen on early deliveries. Lockheed Martin hopes for more units in early batches to reduce unit costs, says Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 integration at Lockheed Martin. Equally important, he says, is stability. "We have not yet had a year where the number we planned is what we got appropriated," causing turbulence in the supply chain, he says. "Facing volatility in our supply chain is one of our biggest challenges."
For Japan, the challenge will be to receive new aircraft on time to preserve its fighter force. To begin taking delivery in 2016, its first aircraft will be part of the low-rate initial production batch 8 (LRIP 8), which is due to be ordered in 2014. The 2016 deliveries are scheduled to include the Block 3 software.
The South Korean defense ministry also hopes to order next year and begin taking delivery in 2016, a schedule that seems uncomfortably close to the JSF development plan. The program's technical baseline review conducted this year called for testing to finish in 2016 on the F-35A, the version that the North Asian countries are interested in. The F-35 program—the Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin—recently wrapped up an integrated baseline review that is intended to match funding to work laid out in the technical baseline review.
Comments by the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, last week hinted that there may be slips in F-35 orders; the details will appear with the budget release in February. Meanwhile, the Defense Acquisition Board will review the integrated baseline plan and new cost estimates for the program next month.
The Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB), a panel of senior officials from each F-35 country, was supposed to have its second 2011 meeting this month. But the meeting has been delayed to March because the U.S. government might change its planned orders in February. The JESB should include obligations for LRIP 6, but any slips would likely ripple into later LRIP buys, including LRIP 8.
While the plans of the U.S. and other customers are not solid, more than 100 F-35s are in the LRIP 8 buy, customers for which include the U.S., Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Israel and Turkey.
In contrast to the program boost from the urgency of Japanese and South Korean requirements, Australia's long-standing commitment may be in doubt because Canberra cannot afford to wait beyond the end of the decade to replace its Boeing F/A-18A/B Hornets. It has already begun buying the obvious F-35 alternative, the Super Hornet.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/12/19/AW_12_19_2011_p29-406756.xml&headline=Seoul%20Will%20Be%20Watching&prev=10
Citaat van: VandeWiel op 20/12/2011 | 22:58 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 20/12/2011 | 21:34 uurduurt minimaal nog wel 10 jaar voordat dat de J20 in operationele vorm is.
Dat is een aanname op basis van de Westerse manier van werken. Maar wie zegt dat de Chinezen niet in staat zijn dit veel sneller te doen door minder eisen te stellen en een toestel met minder mogelijkheden te ontwikkelen, maar wel veel efficiënter te bouwen.
China richt zich tot nu toe meer op kwantiteit dan kwaliteit. Als ze minder eisen stellen en voor massa gaan heeft dat ook impact op snelheid van introductie. Ik zou er in ieder geval niet zo maar vanuit gaan dat de Chinezen nog 10 jaar nodig hebben.
Doet mij een beetje denken aan het rode leger in WO2, het materieel van de Duitsers was superieur.
Ze konden echter niet op tegen de kwantiteit en omvang hier van.....met oa. de T-34
Citaat van: Enforcer op 20/12/2011 | 19:45 uur
Dus die Japanners hebben een fixed price van $114 miljoen voor de eerste 4. Ben meer benieuwd hoe duur de laatste 38 gaan worden.
Die F4 moet dus minstens 35 jaar oud gaan worden. Je zou denken dat men meer haast heeft met de vervanging daarvan. Als die Chinezen over 3-4 jaar moeilijk gaan doen.....
Fixed price? Volgens de huidige planning loopt de System Demonstration & Development fase in de loop van 2016 af. Op dit moment zit ca. 18% van het totaal aantal geplande test (lees vliegende ontwikkeling) vluchten erop. De US Air Force hoopt haar F-35A's in 2018 Initieel Operationeel Capabel te hebben. Dus zullen er nog veel kinderziektes moeten worden opgespoord en opgelost. Over een vaste prijs kan pas wat zinnigs worden gezegd, zodra het Pentagon F-35A Multi Year Procurement contracten gaat afsluiten. Het eerste MYP contract gaat waarschijnlijk in 2014 worden afgesloten. Onze 2 test F-35A's hebben ook geen vaste aankoop prijs, er volgt na de testfase nog een nacalculatie.
Aan de hand van de levensduurkosten (over 20 jaar) a YPN 1,6 triljoen kunnen we wel een indicatie verkrijgen over de gemiddelde aanschafprijs van de Japanse F-35A's. De aanschafkosten vormen ca. 30% van de totale levensduur kosten = YPN 480 miljard = USD 5,251 miljard = EUR 4,325 miljard / 42 = USD 125 miljoen / EUR 103 miljoen. Maar... dan zijn we er nog niet. Japan koopt deze F-35A's onder Foreign Military Sales condities, dus hoeven geen ontwikkelingskosten te worden betaald. Dus krijgt Nederland ook geen royalties a USD 200.000 per verkochte F-35!
Hier spaart Japan flink wat uit, want in 2002 bedroegen de ontwikkelingskosten al USD 20 miljoen per F-35. Intussen zijn deze ontwikkelingskosten al met ruim 60% gestegen is dus nu USD 32 miljoen per F-35.
En dan die F-4J's minimaal 35 jaar in dienst houden, wordt een uitdaging. In 1997 vertelde een Luftwaffe officier mij dat de onderhoudskosten van rond 1974 ingestroomde F-4F Phantoms per jaar 10% hoger werden en dat voor een toen ca. 23 oud jachtvliegtuig. Hak een badkuip doormidden, het hoge voeten eind stelt de hoge initieele kosten voor, de 'rugleuning' van de badkuip zijn de snel stijgende kosten in de nadagen van de levensduur van het vliegtuig.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 21/12/2011 | 09:23 uur
Als ieder land een aantal F-35's besteld met de belofte dat het componenten mag gaan maken, dan wordt de spoeling aan componenten per land wel weer erg dun.
JSF critici hebben in het verleden diverse malen hun zorgen geuit over de mogelijkheid dat niet JSF Partner landen in ruil voor F-35 aankopen.
F-35 onderdelen mogen bouwen of een assemblage lijn opzetten. Dit gaat natuurlijk ten koste van het eventueel F-35 productie aandeel wat niet-Amerikaanse JSF partner landen kunnen verwerven. Israel mag zodoende voor USD 4 miljard aan F-35 onderdelen leveren, omdat haar luchtmacht voor USD 2,7 miljard 20 F-35A's kocht. Uiteraard onder FMS condities, dus men hoeft geen ontwikkelingskosten te betalen en dus ook geen F-35 royalties voor Nederland. In 2001 / 2002 blies LockheedMartin hoog van de toren dat Nederland bij deelname aan de System Demo & Development fase a USD 800 miljoen + 80 - 85 KLu kisten er voor het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven totaal USD 8 miljard aan omzet in het vat zat.
De 'investering' a USD 800 miljoen levert ons naast royalties a USD 200.000 per kist een korting op op de ontwikkelingskosten.
Wat een verschil!
Citaat van: Poleme op 21/12/2011 | 15:56 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 21/12/2011 | 09:23 uur
Als ieder land een aantal F-35's besteld met de belofte dat het componenten mag gaan maken, dan wordt de spoeling aan componenten per land wel weer erg dun.
JSF critici hebben in het verleden diverse malen hun zorgen geuit over de mogelijkheid dat niet JSF Partner landen in ruil voor F-35 aankopen.
F-35 onderdelen mogen bouwen of een assemblage lijn opzetten. Dit gaat natuurlijk ten koste van het eventueel F-35 productie aandeel wat niet-Amerikaanse JSF partner landen kunnen verwerven. Israel mag zodoende voor USD 4 miljard aan F-35 onderdelen leveren, omdat haar luchtmacht voor USD 2,7 miljard 20 F-35A's kocht. Uiteraard onder FMS condities, dus men hoeft geen ontwikkelingskosten te betalen en dus ook geen F-35 royalties voor Nederland. In 2001 / 2002 blies LockheedMartin hoog van de toren dat Nederland bij deelname aan de System Demo & Development fase a USD 800 miljoen + 80 - 85 KLu kisten er voor het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven totaal USD 8 miljard aan omzet in het vat zat.
De 'investering' a USD 800 miljoen levert ons naast royalties a USD 200.000 per kist een korting op op de ontwikkelingskosten.
Wat een verschil!
Als alles door de Amerikanen wordt verkocht onder FMS condities ontvangen wij (Nederland) 0,0 euro's aan royalties.
Waarschijnlijk vallen leveringen aan Australie, Korea, Singapore, Canada, Noorwegen ook hieronder, l...... euke luchtballon .....
Risky catalog purchase of fighter
The government on Tuesday selected Lockheed Martin's F-35 as the Air-Self Defense Force's next-generation fighter over Boeing's F/A-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace aging F-4 fighters. Japan plans to purchase 42 F-35s, hoping that the first delivery will start in fiscal 2016 (April 2016-March 2017). The total cost, including maintenance cost, is expected to reach some ¥1.6 trillion.
The key factor behind the selection is the F-35's stealth capabilities to cope with stealth fighters being developed by China and Russia. The government also must have taken into consideration interoperability with the U.S. armed forces, which plan to acquire some 2,400 F-35s by 2035. But problems surround the government decision.
The biggest problem is that the decision was made while the F-35 is still in an early production stage. The F/A-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon proved their operability through actual combat missions in Libya. Taxpayers should remember the fact that the government picked the F-35 solely on the basis of catalog data, without carrying out test flights. It also refuses to make public the grading marks of its assessment of the three candidate aircraft.
The fear has been raised that the F-35 may fail to start to be delivered by the end of March 2017 as hoped by Japan because of a delay in its development caused by cracks in its fuselage. This problem may also raise the plane's price.
In view of these factors, a high-ranking defense official hinted that Japan will ask the United States to submit a promise that there will be no changes in the delivery time and the price. But the U.S. has a rule that it will not provide parts and other support to a country that purchases a U.S.-developed weapon before the U.S. starts operating it. The U.S. Air Force expects to start operating the F-35 around 2018. It is said that the obsolete F-4 cannot be operated beyond fiscal 2016. What if the F-35's delivery is delayed?
It is not immediately known to what extent Japanese firms can involve themselves in the production of F-35 planes under license. Thus it is unclear whether they will acquire enough knowledge about the F-35, which is necessary for stable operation of the plane. The need to change stealth paint at certain intervals would increase difficulty in maintenance. It must be kept in mind that excellent catalog data do not necessarily ensure reliability and a high operation rate of a weapon.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20111223a1.html
Japan Judged F-35 To Have Best Performance
Dec 22, 2011
By Bradley Perrett
BEIJING — The Japanese defense ministry says the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning's performance beat that of the other two contenders in the competition for Japan's F-X fighter requirement.
The ministry says the F-35A also was the cheapest, because the competing Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would have needed modification for flying-boom inflight refueling.
Japanese industry will be able to make 40% of the aircraft's "300 components," according to a Sankei newspaper report that does not say how the parts have been counted. The Yomiuri newspaper says the U.S. government is proposing that Japan build F-35 wings and tails, work that would otherwise go to Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems, respectively.
These reports indicate that Japan will, as expected, retreat from its previous policy of near-complete manufacturing of fighters. But it will retain considerable industrial capabilities, at least in structures. Lockheed Martin is also suggesting that Japan build a final assembly plant, which it is likely to do.
The larger the local industrial involvement in building Japanese F-35s, the greater the likelihood that the country will keep building them after the initial requirement for 42 is filled. Although recent news reports say Japan needs 40-50 F-35s, the defense ministry confirms it will buy 42, the number that industry executives had been expecting. Before the F-X selection was made, Japanese manufacturers urged that the aircraft be built in-country until the late 2020s to replace some of its Boeing F-15Js.
The defense ministry says it gave each contender a score in four areas. A maximum of 50 points was available for aircraft performance, 22.5 for cost, 22.5 for domestic industrial participation and 5 for after-sales support.
It does not explain why the F-35 led in the assessment of performance, except that the result was based on operations research, but the defense ministry adds that it was also judged as having the best after-sales support. The stealth fighter appears to have lagged on domestic industrial participation — because the U.S. government is not expected to allow enough technology transfer to build all of it. Eurofighter agreed to 95% "information-sharing" and Boeing to 70-80%, the Sankei says, without explanation. The information-sharing offer for the F-35 was extremely low by comparison, the paper says.
Eurofighter officials had previously said Japan could build as much of the Typhoon as they wanted. Eurofighter's offer particularly appealed to some members of the Diet, according to a newspaper from the Nagoya area, where Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has its aerospace works. Several of them argued in a meeting of the Diet defense committee that Japan should choose the Typhoon for the F-X requirement, to replace F-4EJ Kai Phantoms, and then switch to the F-35.
The defense ministry makes no mention of assigning a value to the risk of buying each aircraft, as its counterparts in other countries often do, especially when considering an order for equipment that is still under development. After repeated delays, the F-35 is now due to achieve initial operational capability with the U.S. Air Force in 2018, with its F-35A version.
The first four F-35As for Japan are to be ordered in the fiscal year that begins on April 1, 2012, for delivery in 2016. The defense ministry expects them to cost ¥9.9 billion ($127 million) each, not including the cost of running them. That leaves a lot of room for savings when compared with the ¥15 billion unit cost that Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa cited in November for further production of the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-2 strike fighter.
The defense ministry projects that Japan will spend ¥1.6 trillion in buying all 42 F-35As and operating them for 20 years.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2011/12/22/05.xml&headline=Japan%20Judged%20F-35%20To%20Have%20Best%20Performance
Japan's F-35 Choice Questioned
The Diplomat speaks with Gareth Jennings, IHS Jane's Aviation desk editor and managing editor of Jane's Missiles & Rockets, to discuss Japan's choice of the F-35 fighter in its recent F-X competition.
Japan has just selected the F-35 as its next fighter aircraft and winner of the F-X project. Some have asserted the choice was more political than based on merit. Do you agree?
My opinion is that politics played a large part in the decision, but was not the sole reason. Ever since Japan was allowed to rebuild its air force after World War II, it has either developed and built its own types (the Mitsubishi F-1 and F-2, both based on western designs) or has bought the rights to license-build U.S. aircraft in Japan (the Mitsubishi-Boeing F-15J Eagle, Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ Phantom II). To the best of my knowledge, Japan has never bought a non-U.S. combat aircraft. The reasons for this are largely political – the United States is Japan's greatest ally and it is the U.S. that would come to Japan's aid if ever the Russians or the Chinese attacked. Also, the U.S. provides much of the technology transfer Japan requires for its own aerospace industry (the F-2 was a joint Japanese / U.S. project built around the F-16 Fighting Falcon).
Although many suggested that the Eurofighter Typhoon was best placed to fulfill the requirements of the F-X competition (it's arguably the most capable air-to-air platform, which is the main requirement of F-X), it was always going to be the outsider being a European aircraft. That left the F-18 Super Hornet and the F-35 (both U.S. aircraft). The Super Hornet is the oldest of the three (although it entered U.S. Navy service in the mid-2000s, it's based on the Hornet design that goes back to the 1970s), and many felt Japan might be put off for that reason.
That left the F-35. Over recent years, Japan has made no secret of its desire to procure the stealthy Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, but was continually rebuffed by the U.S. government. Of the F-22's many attributes, it was its stealth that made it so alluring to Japan. While both the Typhoon and the Super Hornet do have stealthy characteristics, the F-35 has been largely marketed on the back of its stealth capabilities. Japan is currently in the early stages of developing its own indigenous ATD-X stealth fighter, so any expertise that can be gained from industrial participation in F-35 production will certainly be welcome. In all likelihood it's this, coupled with Japan's long-standing political and industrial allegiance to the U.S., that secured F-X success for the F-35.
Some commentators have argued the Eurofighter would have been a better choice based on the criteria of the F-X competition. Do you agree?
In its F-X competition, Japan was looking for an air superiority fighter to replace its ageing Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ Phantom IIs. Many have suggested that the emphasis on interdiction and strike in the F-35's design may adversely affect its air-to-air capability.
Whereas the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon were both developed to be fighters first and bombers second (particularly so with the Typhoon), the opposite is true for the F-35.
It has been proven in the past that, while it's possible to make a bomber out of a fighter (the F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Hornet being prime examples), the opposite doesn't hold true (the fighter variant of the Panavia Tornado didn't acquit itself in the same manner as did the original strike variant).
For its part, Lockheed Martin dismisses such concerns, telling Jane's that the F-35 "was designed and built to counter the most advanced airborne and ground-based threats -- exactly the air-defense environment that Japan faces today and in the future. The F-35 has exceptional air-to-air capabilities based on its stealth, full-fighter aerodynamic performance, advanced sensors, sensor fusion and advanced datalinks."
This may be true, but all of the attributes listed above, with the exception of "full-fighter aerodynamic performance," are primarily of importance in the beyond-visual-range (BVR) environment. This BVR environment isn't normally encountered outside a full-scale war as pilots are usually required to visually identify potential targets before engaging them.
While Lockheed Martin talks up the aircraft's aerodynamic performance, its been noted that the F-35's relatively small wing area will translate into high wing loadings during a turning dogfight. Such loadings aren't good in an air-to-air combat scenario as they severely limit maneuverability. As such, questions have been raised over the F-35's ability to match the maneuverability of Chinese types such as the J-10 and J-11 during close-in aerial combat.
Of the three aircraft, the Typhoon is most widely held up to be the best in aerial combat, and so on this basis you have to suppose it would have been best place to fulfill Japan's requirements in this instance.
If the Eurofighter had been selected, how would it measure up against new regional planes like China's J-20 fighter?
It's hard to say as the Typhoon is a proven and battle tested aircraft, whereas the J-20 is still a developmental prototype. If the Chinese claims about the aircraft are true, then it's more in the league of the F-22, which is arguably the most capable fighter in the world today. It would seem that Japan's indigenous ATD-X stealth fighter program would be more geared to combating threats such as the J-20, whereas the Typhoon would be a peer rival to the J-10 and J-11 fighters currently in service with the PLAF.
There have been some reports that suggest had Japan selected the Eurofighter or F-18, there could have been opportunities for technology sharing and possible domestic production of the aircraft. How beneficial would have this been to Japan's domestic fighter aircraft industry?
Like most other countries, Japan is always looking to further its own domestic aerospace industry and technology transfer is always one of the carrots that competing manufacturers will offer. In its competition, Brazil has voiced concerns about the extent to which Boeing can transfer the technology of its Super Hornet, so it would be interesting to see what transfer was offered to Japan. However, local assembly is a requirement of the competition, so whoever won it would have to offer something in this regard.
Some have made the argument the F-18 would have been a better choice, with its having a lower cost per plane. What advantages would there have been with going with this aircraft?
The Super Hornet is arguably the cheapest of the three (although it depends on how you calculate this – some figures include engines, others don't and have them as an "optional extra"). Already being in service with the U.S. Navy and Australia there's a huge logistical support base in place, which Japan could tap into for further savings. In addition, Boeing is committed to a capability enhancement program called 'the International Roadmap' for the aircraft.
Japan in the next few years will have a need to replace its aging F-15 fleet. As it stands now, what aircraft do you feel is in the lead position for such a role?
In my opinion, either F-35 or ATD-X or a combination of the two.
http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2011/12/22/japans-f-35-choice-questioned-2/
Dat wordt een sayonara voor de Nippon regering in 2016, en dankzij het in gevaar brengen van de nationale veiligheid zal een enkeling wel harakiri gaan plegen, uit schaamte.
Ennuh, 40% van de onderdelen zelf maken?! Zo te zien gaan die Britten dan helemaal door het lint aangezien dit waarschijnlijk ten koste gaat van BAe.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 23/12/2011 | 19:56 uur
Dat wordt een sayonara voor de Nippon regering in 2016, en dankzij het in gevaar brengen van de nationale veiligheid zal een enkeling wel harakiri gaan plegen, uit schaamte.
Ennuh, 40% van de onderdelen zelf maken?! Zo te zien gaan die Britten dan helemaal door het lint aangezien dit waarschijnlijk ten koste gaat van BAe.
Over de Britten gesproken, ik ben benieuwd wat de zij zullen gaan doen
als de C variant drastisch in aantal wordt teruggeschroeft
of zelfs gecancelled wordt, daar ga je dan als level one partner
Europe loses out in Asian arms market
Richard A Bitzinger
Singapore December 27, 2011 1:00 am
On December 21, Japan announced that it would purchase 42 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), at a cost of US$2.73 billion, or $65 million per plane.
It was the second win in Asia for the JSF (in 2007, Australia placed an initial order for 24 F-35s, and Canberra could acquire up to 100 aircraft).
This order was the latest in a string of losses for the leading European fighter aircraft programmes, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the French Rafale. If these programmes do not secure an export order soon, it could be the end of their chances to sell to one of the world's most lucrative arms markets: Asia.
The Typhoon was co-developed and is being jointly manufactured by four European countries - the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Rafale is solely produced by Dassault of France. Both planes are mainly produced for their countries' respective air forces, but exports were always anticipated as a means to make these very expensive aircraft profitable. So far, however, the Typhoon has chalked up only two export customers - 72 aircraft to Saudi Arabia, and 18 to Austria - while the Rafale has failed to secure any overseas sales. Most recently, the Rafale lost a big potential deal to the United Arab Emirates.
Asia has been a particularly frustrating market for them, especially in the light of successes by competing fighter aircraft manufacturers. Over the past decade, Russia has sold hundreds of Sukhoi Su-27s and Su-30s to India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. The United States has taken away potential European sales to South Korea and Singapore: in both cases, the F-15 fighter (a much older aircraft, at least in terms of its original design) won out over the Typhoon and Rafale. Even the Swedes have had more success in Asia, securing orders for twelve of its Gripen fighter jets to Thailand (Sweden also recently closed a deal for 22 Gripens to Switzerland).
It is the JSF, however, that offers the greatest long-term challenge to the European fighter aircraft manufacturers. The F-35 is one of only two fifth-generation fighters currently in existence - the F-22 Raptor being the other - and it is the only one available for foreign customers (the US Congress refuses to permit the F-22 to be exported). No other combat aircraft on the international market approaches the JSF in terms of technology, particularly in stealth and avionics (radar and other onboard sensors). It is simply in a class by itself and represents a life-or-death threat to its European competitors.
A multinational development and production programme, the F-35 has eleven partnering nations, led by the US. Many of these countries - the US, the UK, Israel, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia - have already announced their intention to buy the JSF, while the others - Singapore, Turkey, Denmark and Italy - are likely to place orders within the next few years. Singapore, for example, could acquire up to 100 JSFs.
The Japan deal is the first F-35 sale outside the eleven JSF partnering countries, however, and it could signal the start of a major buying spree of F-35s by other air forces, to the detriment of the Typhoon and Rafale. South Korea is a potential customer for the JSF, as an alternative to costly and potentially disastrous dreams of developing its own fifth-generation fighter.
More critically, the JSF could snatch a major deal away from the Europeans to sell 126 new fighter jets to India. In April 2011, after years of testing and evaluation, New Delhi shortlisted the Typhoon and the Rafale, eliminating the US F-16 and F-18 fighters. The US countered with an offer to sell the F-35 to the Indians, including possibly the short-takeoff version to operate off Indian aircraft carriers. If successful, it would perhaps be the death blow to European fighter sales to Asia.
Compounding the Europeans' dilemma is the fact that they have no follow-on fighter jet programme in the works now to compete with the JSF. The Typhoon and Rafale (and the Gripen, for that matter) were all initiated in the early 1980s; consequently, these designs are approaching their replacement dates. At present, however, there is simply no money in the European aerospace sector to fund a fifth-generation fighter like the F-35. Moreover, talk about a European UCAV (an unmanned combat aerial vehicle), which could constitute the region's next-generation fighter programme, remains just that - talk.
Consequently, the Europeans (including the Russians, who have made little progress so far in developing a fifth-generation fighter) could, through inaction, be ceding the future global fighter business to the US. The F-35 is likely to dominate this market for the next 20 years. This, in turn, could leave the US in an unassailable position as the world's predominant fighter aircraft producer.
Richard A Bitzinger is a senior fellow with the Military Transformations Programme at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. Formerly with the RAND Corp and the Defence Budget Project, he has been writing on aerospace and defence issues for more than 20 years.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Europe-loses-out-in-Asian-arms-market-30172681.html
Dat wordt een (kleine) maand langer nagels bijten in Europa.
Govt to announce winner for 126-plus combat jets in 2012
Published: Monday, Dec 26, 2011, 17:44 IST
By Gulshan Luthra & Air Marshal (retd) Ashok Goel | Place: New Delhi | Agency: IANS
The government is all set to announce the winner of the Indian Air Force (IAF) competition for 126-plus combat jets early in 2012.
Authoritative sources told India Strategic defence magazine (www.indiastrategic.in) that the process was nearing completion but there were volumes of paperwork and the complicated costs involving Transfer of Technology (ToT), Offsets, Lifecycle Upgrades and Maintenance Support. Every detail was being looked into as this was India's -- and the world's -- single biggest defence tender yet in the 21st century.
The defence ministry has not set any deadline to the process, but it could be a New Year gift to the Indian Air Force as the announcement could come around mid-January.
Notably, the financial bids of the two finalists in the fray, European consortium EADS' Eurofighter and French Rafale, are valid only till Dec 31. Both of them could be asked to extend the validity of their offers for another few months.
However, even if the choice is made within this month, the winner would be asked for an extension to facilitate negotiations and finalisation.
It may be recalled that the IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne, had said Dec 18 in Bangalore that "by mid-December we should have a very good sense of who has been selected".
Understandably, by now, the IAF and the defence ministry should know who is winning -- or who is the lowest -- but till all the voluminous paperwork has been examined to the last full stop, the files are Top Secret and literally "For Your Eyes Only" for those dealing with the subject.
The Air chief, who was speaking on the margins of a conference at the Institute of Aerospace Medicine, had also said: "I can't tell anything till the time we finish that work, as there are a lot of complicated calculations and figures that need to be checked."
Initially, when the tender was floated in August 2007, the estimated cost for 126 aircraft with two years' support and weapons was $10 billion (Rs42,000 crores). Both the European finalists are known to be more expensive than the four others who lost out in the fray, and the defence ministry revised the estimate some time back in terms of the dollar and the euro.
The revision could be 30 to 40% of the pre-bid estimate, or say around to $13-14 billion. But this is only a guess as the winner has to help set up the manufacturing units in India and costing for this is not available. Neither of the two aircraft has been sold anywhere the way India wants.
There is also an option clause for another 63 aircraft. Their cost would be additional.
Meanwhile, the Indian rupee has been depreciating, but fluctuations are factored in all defence acquisitions and do not hinder the process. No fresh cabinet approval is required in such cases.
Although procedurally the lowest bidder, designated L-1 in the defence ministry jargon, should be the winner, the choice has to be approved by the government, specifically the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It includes the ministers for finance (Pranab Mukherjee), Defence (AK Antony), home (P Chidambaram) and external affairs (SM Krishna).
Antony has stated that the selection would be on technical and financial merit, that is, on the basis of IAF's requirements and the price offered. The bid is submitted in two parts: technical and financial.
The IAF disqualified four others in the fray -- Sweden's Saab Gripen, Russia's MiG-35 and the US Boeing F-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-16 Super Viper on the basis of points in its selection process.
As per the procedure, IAF is not supposed to give any grading like Number 1 or Number 2 to the finalists and both are equal for the defence ministry.
Nonetheless, the government is not bound to select the L-1 as the winner, even if it is much lower, as there is an over-riding clause in the tender. If in the national strategic calculus, the L-2 can be of strategic significance for India, then the CCS can go in for that aircraft.
In diplomatic circles, the deal is being described as France (Rafale) vs Europe (Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy make up the consortium that makes the Eurofighter).
Eurofighter's supporters say that India could gain significant weight in the global arena through this deal.
The French say that they have supplied the best of their systems to India without any restrictions so far, and that it would be much easier to deal with a single country than the bureaucracies of four others over the life time of the aircraft -- 6,000 flying hours or 40 years as stipulated in the tender.
So who is the winner?
Procedurally, L-1.
Strategically, only the CCS, the cabinet secretary, the National Security Adviser, the foreign secretary and the defence secretary can decide
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_govt-to-announce-winner-for-126-plus-combat-jets-in-2012_1630257
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/12/2011 | 20:14 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 23/12/2011 | 19:56 uur
Dat wordt een sayonara voor de Nippon regering in 2016, en dankzij het in gevaar brengen van de nationale veiligheid zal een enkeling wel harakiri gaan plegen, uit schaamte.
Ennuh, 40% van de onderdelen zelf maken?! Zo te zien gaan die Britten dan helemaal door het lint aangezien dit waarschijnlijk ten koste gaat van BAe.
Over de Britten gesproken, ik ben benieuwd wat de zij zullen gaan doen als de C variant drastisch in aantal wordt teruggeschroeft of zelfs gecancelled wordt, daar ga je dan als level one partner
Dit is het zal dan vermoedelijk het antwoord zijn van de Britten?
Citaat van: Ace1 op 27/12/2011 | 20:25 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/12/2011 | 20:14 uur
Over de Britten gesproken, ik ben benieuwd wat de zij zullen gaan doen als de C variant drastisch in aantal wordt teruggeschroeft of zelfs gecancelled wordt, daar ga je dan als level one partner
Dit is het zal dan vermoedelijk het antwoord zijn van de Britten?
Dat betwijfel ik ten zeerste.
Als de F-35C er niet komt dan zou ik 75% van mijn centen zetten op de F-18 zoals in gebruik bij de USN.
En alsnog een 25% op de Rafale-M... Want wie weet is er toch nog een beetje een Frans-Britse Defensie-as
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 27/12/2011 | 22:27 uur
Dat betwijfel ik ten zeerste.
Als de F-35C er niet komt dan zou ik 75% van mijn centen zetten op de F-18 zoals in gebruik bij de USN.
En alsnog een 25% op de Rafale-M... Want wie weet is er toch nog een beetje een Frans-Britse Defensie-as
Deze mening deel ik, al schat ik de kansen van de Rafale dan iets hoger in omdat de UK in het voorkomende geval wel erg teleurgesteld in de US zal zijn (tenzij ze de F18E tegen een goedmaker prijs kunnen verwerven)
Ik ben zo vrij te geloven dat de Britten niet massaal een Frans (defensie)produkt zullen kopen....
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 28/12/2011 | 09:25 uur
Ik ben zo vrij te geloven dat de Britten niet massaal een Frans (defensie)produkt zullen kopen....
Ik acht de kans op een andere Amerikaan ook aanzienlijk groter als de F35C in totaal wordt gecancelled al was het maar om tijdens carriers ops over aansluitende systemen te beschikken.
Helemaal de Fransoos uitsluiten is ook niet handig, al was het maar vanwege economische belangen, een keuze uit één levert immers weinig onderhandelingsruimte.
Bij het voledig annuleren van de C variant zou ook de Britse trots gekrengt kunnen zijn, ze zijn in het JSF progamma immers level one partner die vervolgens met "lege" handen komt te staan, die dan toch met ander ogen naar de Fransoos zou kunnen kijken, ook mede in het licht van de carrier samenwerking tussen beide landen.
En Brits-Franse samenwerking uit het (recente) militaire verleden laat zien dat gezamelijk succes wel mogelijk is, neem het voorbeeld van de SEPECAT Jaguar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar
UK, Italy, Germany, Spain pitch for Eurofighter
Shubhajit Roy,Manu Pubby
Posted: Dec 28, 2011 at 0038 hrs IST
Days before the government is set to finalise the winner of the multi-billion dollar contract to purchase new generation fighters for the Air Force, four heads of governments from the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain have jointly pitched for the Eurofighter in a confidential letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by lending "political support" to the high-profile commercial contract.
The Eurofighter is in a face-off with France's Rafale for the race to provide 126 fighters to the Air Force, that is grappling with a serious shortage of combat aircraft. A decision on the matter is expected within the next few weeks, with Defence Ministry officials indicating that the winner would be announced by the first week of January.
In a joint "confidential" missive to the Prime Minister sent last week, British PM David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel — along with Italian and Spanish Prime Ministers — have said the EADS' Eurofighter is an "excellent aircraft that stands on its own merit".
The joint letter has also welcomed India as the "fifth partner country" in jointly developing the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA), in the event of Eurofighter being chosen for the contract. The four PMs have also reaffirmed the "security of supply" in the case of Eurofighter Typhoon.
This joint letter, sources said, is "unprecedented" since the four countries have lent strategic support to the commercial deal ahead of the final decision. They are pitted against the French government-backed Rafale.
It may be recalled that US President Barack Obama had also lobbied for the US aircraft with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his visit to India last year and followed it up with a letter highlighting this contract as being important to his administration. However, the bids of two US companies, along with the Russian and Swedish firms, were rejected after technical evaluation in April this year.
Commercial bids of the two remaining contenders — Dassault's Rafale and EADS's Eurofighter — were opened last month but a decision could not be taken immediately as the Defence Ministry had to make complex cost calculations based on life cycle costs as well as the value of technology transfer. Sources indicated that while the French fighters came out slightly cheaper, the Eurofighter had a strong offsets and technology transfer proposal.
Till now the multi-billion contract strictly followed the technical procedure — four contenders including the American F16 and F18 were knocked out as they failed the flying trials — but the narrow difference between the fly away costs of both fighters has given Indian decision makers the leeway to make a political decision on the purchase.
While the value of the contract was pegged at US $10 billion when the tender was floated in 2007, this is expected to almost double, given inflation and currency variations over the last few years, besides plans to increase the order by 63 more fighters to meet deficiencies in the fighter fleet.
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/UKItalyGermanySpainpitchforEurofighter/892756/
Politiek gezien kan India bij 4 landen wat winnen met de Eurofighter en bij maar eentje met de Rafale. Zou het uiteindelijk niet gewoon daar om gaan?!
Citaat van: Enforcer op 28/12/2011 | 11:08 uur
Politiek gezien kan India bij 4 landen wat winnen met de Eurofighter en bij maar eentje met de Rafale. Zou het uiteindelijk niet gewoon daar om gaan?!
Lastige vraag. Als India op een militair avontuur gaat dan is support ook een belangrijk vraagstuk, wat als Duitsland dwars gaat liggen (wat ze wel vaker doen), welke gevolgen kan dit hebben voor de inzetbaarheid?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/12/2011 | 11:12 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 28/12/2011 | 11:08 uur
Politiek gezien kan India bij 4 landen wat winnen met de Eurofighter en bij maar eentje met de Rafale. Zou het uiteindelijk niet gewoon daar om gaan?!
Lastige vraag. Als India op een militair avontuur gaat dan is support ook een belangrijk vraagstuk, wat als Duitsland dwars gaat liggen (wat ze wel vaker doen), welke gevolgen kan dit hebben voor de inzetbaarheid?
Juist, ik denk dat de Fransen in nog 't minst last hebben wat scrupules betreft :)
Wordt er iets van de Rafale in NL geproduceerd? Zo niet, dan boeit me het totaal niet of een land Frans materieel koopt.
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 28/12/2011 | 16:09 uur
Wordt er iets van de Rafale in NL geproduceerd? Zo niet, dan boeit me het totaal niet of een land Frans materieel koopt.
Voor nu is het niet spannend, maar het is goed voor de Europese defensie industrie, anders zou de huidige generatie Europese bemande gevechtsvliegtuigen maar zo de laatste kunnen zijn.
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 28/12/2011 | 14:12 uur
Juist, ik denk dat de Fransen in nog 't minst last hebben wat scrupules betreft :)
Dat denk ik ook, daarnaast vind ik het belangrijk (voor de gehele Europese fighter industrie) dat de Fransen hun eerste export succes kunnen boeken.
Citaat van: dudge op 28/12/2011 | 18:34 uur
Los daarvan, groei in de eurozone is nu direct in ons belang.
Mee eens.
Citaat van: dudge op 28/12/2011 | 18:34 uur
Los daarvan, groei in de eurozone is nu direct in ons belang.
In dat geval moet het de Eurofighter zijn, omdat die Italianen nu het grootste risico vormen.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 28/12/2011 | 19:32 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 28/12/2011 | 18:34 uur
Los daarvan, groei in de eurozone is nu direct in ons belang.
In dat geval moet het de Eurofighter zijn, omdat die Italianen nu het grootste risico vormen.
Welke het ook wordt... het grootste gedeelte van het geld zal in India zelf uitgegeven worden aan deze order, immers van de 126 + 63 opties worden er slechts 18 vliegklaar afgeleverd, de rest wordt lokaal geproduceerd.
Het wordt tijd, zeker na de bekendmaking van de Indiaase (en Baziliaanse) winnaar, dat de huidige 3 Europese fabrikanten hun koppen bij elkaar steken om te komen tot één of maximaal twee opvolgers van de huidige generatie. (b.v. een één en een twee motorige fighter in een vehouding als Gripen staat tot Eurofighter of F16 staat tot F15)
Doen ze dit niet dan gaan ze de strijd over 20+ jaar verliezen tegen de Amerikanen, de Aziaten en de Russen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/12/2011 | 20:02 uur
Doen ze dit niet dan gaan ze de strijd over 20+ jaar verliezen tegen de Amerikanen, de Aziaten en de Russen.
Als je heel cynisch kijkt naar waar de vraag voor fighters in de komende 20 jaren ligt, dan is dat niet in Europa maar in Azie. Europa waant zich veilig terwijl in Azie een aantal serieuze blokken aan het ontstaan zijn. Dat zal helaas niet goed uitpakken voor de Europeanen, ondanks dat ze nu misschien nog betere toestellen maken.
The F-35, $400 Billion Boondoggle: A Christmas Present
Posted: 12/28/11 09:22 AM ET
On December 7th, I reported that Air Force officials recommended that F-35 testing "should begin [pilot] training at Eglin AFB [Air Force Base] as soon as an event-driven process results in a military flight release." Senator McCain went on the Senate floor and suggested that "it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here..." DOD officials were taking a further look and they wanted to make sure that everything was working before training started and on the Friday before Christmas, DOD officials decided the F-35 is still not ready for flight training.
You may note that the decision was announced on the Friday before Christmas when newspaper reading and TV broadcasts get their smallest audiences. That's probably not a coincidence, because not everything was working and Lockheed Martin, the F-35 contractor, has admitted it.
According to InsideDefense, a key system "known as ALIS [version 1.0.3], is behind schedule and has been identified as senior Defense Department officials as a moderate concurrency risk on the F-35." (The entire piece is available here; it runs sixteen paragraphs, and the news is not good.)
ALIS is intended to be an all-purpose solution, meeting many of the needs of the very advanced system that forms the backbone of the F-35. According to InsideDefense, Lockheed Martin describes ALIS as "designed to be a single, overarching system that performs operations, maintenance, prognostics, training and technical data logistical functions. [But] the current legacy maintenance system is not able to integrate all those tasks." The company had predicted that the version would be complete by the end of November, and according to the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), "At this time it is unknown when [ALIS] 1.0.3 will be implemented."
The AETC officials "are still waiting for an incremental upgrade to ALIS 1.0.2... which will support flight operations, albeit with more limited capacity than the 1.0.3." Until that is done, there is no chance that F-35 training can begin.
According to InsideDefense, there were other shortcomings. "Brig. Gen. David Peterson said that a few issues, primarily logistical support questions, 'require more attention before Eglin AFB can begin flight training.'" (Training was original scheduled to begin in September.)
A November report on the F-35 was, according to InsideDefense, "commissioned by acting DOD Acquisition Executive, Frank Kendall, and written by five senior officials" identifies "ALIS as a moderate concurrency risk on the JSF [the F-35]." The report points out several of the deficiencies and said that it considered "ALIS development only a moderate risk, but it represented a more substantial concurrency risk when considered alongside other areas of moderate concern -- development of the F-35's software, weight management, lighting protection and the effects of extreme temperatures."
Friday's story was not exactly a Merry Christmas present to Lockheed Martin, the DOD or the Joint Forces that plan to use the airplane. InsideDefense headlines its piece as "Immaturity On ALIS Delaying F-35 Training, Called A 'Moderate' Risk." That's a headline that fails to induce much confidence.
We all know that people tend not to pay much attention to news over the Christmas/New Year's break, and if you've got bad news, that's the best time to bury it. Therefore, I'd like to draw attention to the InsideDefense piece and in the hope that some HuffPost readers will find it and look into it themselves.
With Defense budget cuts being criticized by Republicans, and Democrats striving to do as little damage as possible when they make the cuts, the F-35 suggests itself as a program worth considering.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/the-f35-400-billion-boond_b_1167668.html
U.S. to sell F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia
8:59 AM, Dec. 29, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is poised to announce the sale of nearly $30 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials said.
The deal will send 84 new fighter jets and upgrades for 70 more, for a total of $29.4 billion, according to the officials Wednesday, who requested anonymity because the sale has not been made public.
The agreement boosts the military strength of Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, at a time when the Obama administration is looking to counter Iranian threats in the region. Underscoring that effort was a fresh threat this week from Tehran, which warned that it could disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital Persian Gulf oil transport route, if Washington levies new sanctions targeting Iran's crude oil exports.
About a year ago, the administration got the go-ahead from Congress for a 10-year, $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia that included F-15s, helicopters and a broad array of missiles, bombs and delivery systems, as well as radar warning systems and night-vision goggles.
The plan initially raised concerns from pro-Israeli lawmakers, but U.S. officials reassured Congress that Israel's military edge would not be undercut by the sale. Additionally, there is now broad agreement among Israel, the Gulf Arab states and the West that Iran poses a significant and unpredictable threat.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter regional rivals. Tensions between them were further stoked earlier this year after the U.S. accused Iran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in Washington.
Saudi Arabia is already the most militarily advanced of the Arab Gulf states, one of the richest countries in the world, and central to American policy in the Middle East. It is also vital to U.S. energy security, with Saudi Arabia ranking as the third-largest source of U.S. oil imports.
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20111229/NEWS/111229005
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/12/2011 | 16:10 uur
U.S. to sell F-15 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia
Ik zie net op Fox News, dat hierbij iig 50.000 US banen bij betrokken zijn.
Saudi Arabia – F-15SA Aircraft
WASHINGTON: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Saudi Arabia of:
84 F-15SA Aircraft
170 APG-63(v)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets
193 F-110-GE-129 Improved Performance Engines
100 M61 Vulcan Cannons
100 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System/Low Volume Terminal (MIDS/LVT) and spares
193 LANTIRN Navigation Pods (3rd Generation-Tiger Eye)
338 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
462 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVGS)
300 AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles
25 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM-9X)
25 Special Air Training Missiles (NATM-9X)
500 AIM-120C/7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
25 AIM-120 CATMs
1,000 Dual Mode Laser/Global Positioning System (GPS) Guided Munitions (500 lb)
1,000 Dual Mode Laser/GPS Guided Munitions (2000 lb)
1,100 GBU-24 PAVEWAY III Laser Guided Bombs (2000 lb)
1,000 GBU-31B V3 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) (2000 lb)
1,300 CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW)/Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD)
50 CBU-105 Inert
1,000 MK-82 500lb General Purpose Bombs
6,000 MK-82 500lb Inert Training Bombs
2,000 MK-84 2000lb General Purpose Bombs
2,000 MK-84 2000lb Inert Training Bombs
200,000 20mm Cartridges
400,000 20mm Target Practice Cartridges
400 AGM-84 Block II HARPOON Missiles
600 AGM-88B HARM Missiles
169 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS)
158 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems
169 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems
10 DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods
462 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System Helmets
40 Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receivers (ROVER)
80 Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation Pods.
Also included are the upgrade of the existing Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) fleet of seventy (70) F-15S multi-role fighters to the F-15SA configuration, the provision for CONUS-based fighter training operations for a twelve (12) F-15SA contingent, construction, refurbishments, and infrastructure improvements of several support facilities for the F-15SA in-Kingdom and/or CONUS operations, RR-188 Chaff, MJU-7/10 Flares, training munitions, Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices, communication security, site surveys, trainers, simulators, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistical support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.
The estimated cost is $29.432 billion.
This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by strengthening our on-going strategically important relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).
For the past twenty years the F-15 has been a cornerstone of the relationship between the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the RSAF. The procurement of the F-15SA, the conversion of the F-15S fleet to a common configuration, and the CONUS training contingent will provide interoperability, sustained professional contacts, and common ground for training and support well into the 21st century.
The F-15SA will help deter potential aggressors by increasing Saudi's tactical air force capability to defend KSA against regional threats. The CONUS-based contingent would improve interoperability between the USAF and the RSAF. This approach will meet Saudi's self-defense requirements and continue to foster the long-term military-to-military relationship between the United States and the KSA. Saudi Arabia, which currently has the F-15 in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing the F-15SA aircraft into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this service will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/saudi-arabia-f-15sa-aircraft-sale-29590/#ixzz1hxYWWHR7
Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS)
Deze DEWS is ook standaard in de F-15SE en wordt nu ook aangeboden aan de USAF als upgrade voor de huidige F-15E's zodat ze nog ver in 2030 meekunnen.
Boeing Selects BAE Systems to Provide Digital Electronic Warfare Suite for International F-15s
The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] has selected BAE Systems' Electronics, Intelligence & Support (EI&S) division to provide the next-generation Digital Electronic Warfare Suite (DEWS) for future international versions of the F-15 multirole fighter aircraft. Boeing's selection of BAE Systems is the result of a rigorous source-selection competition.
"BAE Systems' Digital Electronic Warfare Suite will greatly improve the F-15's aircrew situational awareness, self-protection and electronic countermeasures capabilities," said Mark Bass, Boeing F-15 Program vice president and program manager. "The F-15, with its state-of-the-art electronic warfare capabilities, will continue its multirole supremacy for decades."
Boeing will offer the BAE Systems DEWS as an option for any follow-on procurements from current F-15 customers such as Japan and Saudi Arabia, and to new international customers. The introduction of the new DEWS hardware onto the F-15 weapon system will provide world-class performance and capability while improving reliability, maintainability and operational availability. Retrofitting the hardware onto existing domestic and international F-15s also will be possible and practical. A DEWS retrofit will provide enhanced performance, reduced logistics requirements and life-cycle cost savings for the customer.
"BAE Systems has drawn on its extensive fifth-generation technology to provide Boeing a state-of-the-art system," said Jim Crouch, vice president and general manager of Electronic Warfare Survivability and Protection Systems. "We are looking forward to this partnership with Boeing and bringing increased capability to the F-15 fighter aircraft."
During the initial phases of the program, BAE Systems will produce DEWS test units and support Boeing's efforts to integrate the system into the F-15 weapon platform. The integration activity will take place at Boeing facilities in St. Louis prior to the developmental stage and the initial operational test and evaluation flight programs
http://air-attack.com/news/article/3417/10-31-2008-Boeing-Selects-BAE-Systems-to-Provide-Digital-Electronic-Warfare-Suite-for-International-F-15s.html
De saudi's krijgen wel een super toestel !!
de deal is inclusief :
- APG-63(v)3 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar
- F-110-GE-129 Improved Performance Engines
- Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System/Low Volume Terminal (MIDS/LVT)
- Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS)
- Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS)
- AIM-9X SIDEWINDER Missiles
- AIM-120C/7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
- AGM-84 Block II HARPOON Missiles
- AGM-88B HARM Missiles
Je zou er bijna jaloers van worden, kan Boeing niet nog 50 stuks van de versie F-15 NLA (ala SA) als optie in hun orderboek opnemen.
Levering in 2018
Citaat van: Harald op 29/12/2011 | 22:35 uur
De saudi's krijgen wel een super toestel !!
Je zou er bijna jaloers van worden, kan Boeing niet nog 50 stuks van de versie F-15 NLA (ala SA) als optie in hun orderboek opnemen.
Levering in 2018
Zoals ik al vaker heb geschreven: met 50 tot 60 F15's in een gelijksoortige uitvoering hoor jij mij niet klagen, het resultaat is een Klu die op alle fronten weer 30 jaar mee kan.
Ik ben benieuwd wat 1 F15SA kost.
Zet maar op de short-list. ;D
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2011 | 00:17 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 29/12/2011 | 22:35 uur
De saudi's krijgen wel een super toestel !!
Je zou er bijna jaloers van worden, kan Boeing niet nog 50 stuks van de versie F-15 NLA (ala SA) als optie in hun orderboek opnemen.
Levering in 2018
Zoals ik al vaker heb geschreven: met 50 tot 60 F15's in een gelijksoortige uitvoering hoor jij mij niet klagen, het resultaat is een Klu die op alle fronten weer 30 jaar mee kan.
Ik ben benieuwd wat 1 F15SA kost.
Zet maar op de short-list. ;D
$100 miljoen per stuk, daarmee kun je de SU35 aan die Chavez heeft besteld.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/Silent031709.xml&headline=Boeing%20Unveils%20New%20Stealthy%20F-15&next=10
Citaat van: Ace1 op 30/12/2011 | 17:48 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2011 | 00:17 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 29/12/2011 | 22:35 uur
De saudi's krijgen wel een super toestel !!
Je zou er bijna jaloers van worden, kan Boeing niet nog 50 stuks van de versie F-15 NLA (ala SA) als optie in hun orderboek opnemen.
Levering in 2018
Zoals ik al vaker heb geschreven: met 50 tot 60 F15's in een gelijksoortige uitvoering hoor jij mij niet klagen, het resultaat is een Klu die op alle fronten weer 30 jaar mee kan.
Ik ben benieuwd wat 1 F15SA kost.
Zet maar op de short-list. ;D
$100 miljoen per stuk, daarmee kun je de SU35 aan die Chavez heeft besteld.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/Silent031709.xml&headline=Boeing%20Unveils%20New%20Stealthy%20F-15&next=10
Heeft hij ze besteld dan? Nog nergens iets van gezien...
Citaat van: Hyperion op 30/12/2011 | 18:33 uur
Heeft hij ze besteld dan? Nog nergens iets van gezien...
Ik weet niet waar jij kijk maar ik heb het onderstaande toch gelezen.
President Hugo Chavez has also placed an order for 24 state-of-the-art Russian Sukhoi Su-35 "Flanker-E" fighters with delivery starting by 2010.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2008/10/15/Venezuela-buys-Russian-aircraft-tanks-to-boost-power/UPI-11881224089163/#ixzz1SB6LYkm8
Citaat van: Ace1 op 30/12/2011 | 18:55 uur
Citaat van: Hyperion op 30/12/2011 | 18:33 uur
Heeft hij ze besteld dan? Nog nergens iets van gezien...
Ik weet niet waar jij kijk maar ik heb het onderstaande toch gelezen.
President Hugo Chavez has also placed an order for 24 state-of-the-art Russian Sukhoi Su-35 "Flanker-E" fighters with delivery starting by 2010.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2008/10/15/Venezuela-buys-Russian-aircraft-tanks-to-boost-power/UPI-11881224089163/#ixzz1SB6LYkm8
Oooohh, dat bericht. Is oud en klopt waarschijnlijk niet. Net zoals met de Mi-28s die ze besteld hebben. Het is nu bijna 2012 en er vliegt nog geen enkele Su-35 van Venezuela rond waar dan ook...
Citaat van: Hyperion op 30/12/2011 | 20:02 uur
Oooohh, dat bericht. Is oud en klopt waarschijnlijk niet. Net zoals met de Mi-28s die ze besteld hebben. Het is nu bijna 2012 en er vliegt nog geen enkele Su-35 van Venezuela rond waar dan ook...
Volgens Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35
Vliegen er momenteel 11 in Rusland en er staan voor 2015 enkele tientallen op de nominatie om uigelevert te worden. Venezuele heeft ze blijkbaar besteld echter ik heb geen idee wanneer ze gelevert worden (vast eerder dan bij ons de F35).
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2011 | 20:08 uur
Citaat van: Hyperion op 30/12/2011 | 20:02 uur
Oooohh, dat bericht. Is oud en klopt waarschijnlijk niet. Net zoals met de Mi-28s die ze besteld hebben. Het is nu bijna 2012 en er vliegt nog geen enkele Su-35 van Venezuela rond waar dan ook...
Volgens Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35
Vliegen er momenteel 11 in Rusland en er staan voor 2015 enkele tientallen op de nominatie om uigelevert te worden. Venezuele heeft ze blijkbaar besteld echter ik heb geen idee wanneer ze gelevert worden (vast eerder dan bij ons de F35).
Nogmaals als ze geleverd worden! Als je onzeker bent over in welk land ze vliegen of waar ze in de toekomst naartoe gaan, kijk dan op de russiche wikipedia. Ook al kunnen sommige mensen dit niet lezen geeft dit nogsteeds een goeie informatiebron(Vlaggen van landen zijn wel te herkennen). Venezuela staat hier niet bij, dus je kan grote vraagtekens zetten bij de Su-35 deal.
Hungary begins renegotiating Gripen contract with Sweden
The Defence Ministry has started negotiations with the Swedish government's Defence and Export Security Agency (FXM) about modifying Hungary's contract on leasing Gripen fighter planes, Nepszabadsag daily said on Friday, quoting a letter by Defence Minister Csaba Hende as saying.
Hende gave a written response to an inquiry made by MP Agnes Vadai, a former defence state secretary of the previous, Socialist government, in connection with her information that the government sought to extend the leasing period beyond the 2016 expiry date and reduce the annual leasing fee.
In his letter Hende confirmed to Vadai her information about the talks, citing as the main reason forced cuts in the defence ministry's annual budget.
The total value of the lease for 14 Gripen fighter planes is 340 billion forints (EUR 1.09bn) and of the training of pilots another 58 billion (EUR 187m), of which the defence ministry is to pay per year 30 billion and 2 billion, respectively, the paper said.
Politics.hu
December 30th, 2011
Citaat van: Ace1 op 30/12/2011 | 17:48 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2011 | 00:17 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 29/12/2011 | 22:35 uur
De saudi's krijgen wel een super toestel !!
Je zou er bijna jaloers van worden, kan Boeing niet nog 50 stuks van de versie F-15 NLA (ala SA) als optie in hun orderboek opnemen.
Levering in 2018
Zoals ik al vaker heb geschreven: met 50 tot 60 F15's in een gelijksoortige uitvoering hoor jij mij niet klagen, het resultaat is een Klu die op alle fronten weer 30 jaar mee kan. Ik ben benieuwd wat 1 F15SA kost.
Zet maar op de short-list. ;D
$100 miljoen per stuk, daarmee kun je de SU35 aan die Chavez heeft besteld.
:( KLu officieren kregen ooit eens de gelegenheid om Saudische F-15's op doorreis, op Soesterberg van binnen te bekijken.
Ik kan je vertellen, dat deze 'Arabische' F-15 uitvoering qua hardware & software heel wat minder rijkelijk is uitgerust dan de Amerikaanse F-15's ;)
O ja, nog even dit, onze krijgsmacht kraakt al jaren in haar voegen wegens pecunia & pax schaarste.
De directe + indirecte exploitatie kosten van 1 F-16C in 2010 bedroegen USD 19.087 per vlieg-uur. De US Air Force F-15E deed per vlieg-uur maar liefst USD 28.639 = 50% meer exploitatiekosten. Dus de KLu zou bij de huidige begroting in staat zijn om slechts een vloot van 45
F-15E's aan te houden. Plus, waar halen we de extra bemanningsleden vandaan?
Dus maar niet op de shortlist!
Citaat van: Poleme op 02/01/2012 | 17:50 uur
[ Dus de KLu zou bij de huidige begroting in staat zijn om slechts een vloot van 45
F-15E's aan te houden. Plus, waar halen we de extra bemanningsleden vandaan?
Dus maar niet op de shortlist!
En als je dit getal afzet versus de JSF?
En als secondair tegen de Rafale, EF en Gripen NG? (hierbij realiseer ik me dat de Gripen er vwb getallen aanzienlijk beter uit komt maar dan is de vraag interessant, wat zet meer zoden aan de dijk: 45 F15's of 68 Gripen NG)?
Vwb de bemanning: volgens mij zijn er inmiddels zo veel F16 (recent) van de sterkte afgevoerd dat er vast wel de nodige jockeys te vinden zijn... al zal dan wel de strijd ontbranden over the front of back seat.
Merkel Wrote to Singh Last Month Pushing for Eurofighter Bid
January 02, 2012, 12:38 PM EST
Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel wrote a letter last month to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh encouraging his government to decide in favor of a bid by a Eurofighter partnership to build fighter jets.
Writing on behalf of Germany, the U.K., Italy and Spain, Merkel said a successful Eurofighter bid would mark a "deeper technological and economic partnership," between India and the four countries, a chancellery spokesman said today in Berlin.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-02/merkel-wrote-to-singh-last-month-pushing-for-eurofighter-bid.html
Citaat van: Poleme op 02/01/2012 | 17:50 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 30/12/2011 | 17:48 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/12/2011 | 00:17 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 29/12/2011 | 22:35 uur
De saudi's krijgen wel een super toestel !!
Je zou er bijna jaloers van worden, kan Boeing niet nog 50 stuks van de versie F-15 NLA (ala SA) als optie in hun orderboek opnemen.
Levering in 2018
Zoals ik al vaker heb geschreven: met 50 tot 60 F15's in een gelijksoortige uitvoering hoor jij mij niet klagen, het resultaat is een Klu die op alle fronten weer 30 jaar mee kan. Ik ben benieuwd wat 1 F15SA kost.
Zet maar op de short-list. ;D
$100 miljoen per stuk, daarmee kun je de SU35 aan die Chavez heeft besteld.
:( KLu officieren kregen ooit eens de gelegenheid om Saudische F-15's op doorreis, op Soesterberg van binnen te bekijken.
Ik kan je vertellen, dat deze 'Arabische' F-15 uitvoering qua hardware & software heel wat minder rijkelijk is uitgerust dan de Amerikaanse F-15's ;)
O ja, nog even dit, onze krijgsmacht kraakt al jaren in haar voegen wegens pecunia & pax schaarste.
De directe + indirecte exploitatie kosten van 1 F-16C in 2010 bedroegen USD 19.087 per vlieg-uur. De US Air Force F-15E deed per vlieg-uur maar liefst USD 28.639 = 50% meer exploitatiekosten. Dus de KLu zou bij de huidige begroting in staat zijn om slechts een vloot van 45
F-15E's aan te houden. Plus, waar halen we de extra bemanningsleden vandaan?
Dus maar niet op de shortlist!
graag wel op de short-list
De JSF vlieg-uur kosten worden nog hoger, want deze wordt ruim boven de USD 30.000. (te lezen ergens in deze topic, volgens mij nog door mij zelf geplaatst met een link met daarin verschilende vlieg-uur kosten van US toestellen)
JSF vlieg-uur kosten zijn dus nog hoger dan een 2-motorige 2 zitter zoals de F-15E.
Dan de JSF maar van plaats nr 1 af van de huidige keuzelijst en dan niet meer op de short-list.
Japan's JSF Buy Balances Economics, Industry
Jan 3, 2012
By Bradley Perrett, Amy Butler
Beijing, Washington
1 2 3 Next Page >>
As a Japanese weapon, the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-2 fighter was built in Japan—and only for Japan. In 2011 the government, taking delivery of the last of 94 F-2s, looked at how much it would cost to build more. The answer: ¥15 billion ($193 million) apiece, more than the marginal price that any country has paid for any fighter from a mature production line.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/02/AW_01_02_2012_p26-409910.xml&headline=Japan's%20JSF%20Buy%20Balances%20Economics,%20Industry&next=0
Reshuffles In The JSF Office (zie link voor schema)
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/3/2012 8:26 AM CST
A rare glimpse inside the Joint Strike Fighter program comes from an August 2011 presentation by director of engineering Doug Ebersole -- one of the new leaders brought into the program by VAdm Dave Venlet. (Hat tip to Eric Palmer for finding it.)
The presentation should be encouraging to JSF supporters, because it shows at least that the new team is trying to put things right and -- at least to some degree -- is recognizing the causes of the program's challenges.
There's some interesting wording on page 16. Ebersole's (DoE=director of engineering) challenge is to:
Transition engineering community of practice from one that "reviews and reports" to one that "engages and influences".
Part of that process is to "stand up FTW (Fort Worth) JPO engineering presence". (Ebersole does not say "expand" or "augment" -- he uses a term that implies that there was minimal presence until now.) Between February and June 2011, Venlet's new team completed an audit of "faces and places" that "resulted in (a) need to re-align workforce competencies and re-assign personnel", a process that will continue through 2012.
This is a major reorganization of the government JSF workforce, based on an assessment of its performance that doesn't sound favorable: Largely absent from Fort Worth, relying on the contractor team to provide information, and not having the right people in the right places to do the job.
Note, too, that Ebersole precedes his comments with a "vector" provided by USAF Chief of Staff Gen Norton Schwartz:
Improved acquisition performance begins with experienced professionals, using the right analytic tools and processes, all supported by transparent decision-making.
That note links the JSF program to a long-simmering argument as to whether the Pentagon moved too quickly in cutting the size and importance of its professional acquisition corps -- for instance, the USAF's elimination of Systems Command in 1992.
It's worth repeating a quote from Paul Kaminski -- now chair of the Defense Science Board and a former acquisition chief -- from his October 2011 interview with DTI, on the importance of developing "domain experience" in acquisition professionals:
We used to give people that experience, where they would start as the managers of technology development programs. We could see who did well as program managers in those smaller programs, and pick from the best to run the larger programs. They ended up having bruised-knuckles experience.
They could understand who in the industry was credible, how to separate the promises from the delivery experience.
Also of interest in the paper: A detailed plan for releasing block upgrades:
Note that training aircraft are restricted to subsonic speeds and modest g and angle-of-attack limits until Block 2B arrives, and that "Block 2B and 3C Fleet Release timing (is) under development". Stay tuned...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2c687048-8ad4-42ee-9f16-3cf2f920da79&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Air Force Buys Light Attack Planes For Afghans -- Not U.S.
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Published: January 3, 2012
Just before the New Year, the U.S. Air Force finally selected a new Light Air Support plane for ground attack in counterinsurgency, picking the Brazilian Super Tucano over the American AT-6– whose manufacturer, Wichita, Kan.-based Hawker Beechcraft, is filing suit over the decision. But just as important as what the Pentagon is buying is how many and for whom: just 20 aircraft, with an option for another 15, which will go not to equip regular U.S. Air Force units but to train the embryonic air force of Afghanistan.
The Air Force Light Air Support program and a smaller Navy effort called "Combat Dragon" have been closely watched as a leading indicator of whether the U.S. military was willing to invest in the kind of low-cost, low-altitude, low-tech airplanes best suited for close air support in counterinsurgency. The answer is, not much.
At $355 million for 20 aircraft – just under $18 million apiece – the Super Tucano buy is peanuts by Pentagon standards. Combat Dragon is even smaller, a $20 million proof-of-concept with leased planes (though Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, has still denounced it as pork). By contrast, despite tightening budgets, the military has fought off attempts to cut Lockheed Martin's $382 billion Joint Strike Fighter program to develop and build stealthy fighter-bombers for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps – a planned 2,457 aircraft at a cost per plane that has risen above $150 million. Four Joint Strike Fighters cost as much as the entire Light Air Support contract.
For more news and information on the swiftly-changing defense industry, please sign up for the AOL Defense newsletter. For the quickest updates, like us on Facebook.
To be clear, the Air Force has real reasons for prioritizing the higher-tech plane. The JSF is a supersonic, radar-evading jet with advanced electronics; the LAS is a propeller plane that looks like something out of World War II. (One early contender for the LAS program was a modified crop-duster built by Air Tractor. They got knocked out of the competition when the Air Force required retractable landing gear). In an air-to-air duel, there'd be no competition. In airstrikes against ground targets, the JSF can take on a much wider range of missions because its stealth, speed, and avionics allow it to evade anti-aircraft defenses that would simply smack the LAS out of the sky.
Conversely, there are some things the LAS can do that a higher-performance airplane can't. It can take off and land from dirt runways with minimal maintenance, for example, allowing more responsive and intimate cooperation with frontline ground troops. Once aloft, a propeller plane can fly slow circles in the sky for hours waiting for insurgents to show themselves, a waiting game that fuel-hungry jet fighters cannot play. But those LAS advantages apply primarily to places like Colombia – where the Super Tucano has been battle-tested – or to Afghanistan, where the enemy is short on firepower to threaten low-flying airplanes or the forward bases they fly from. You would need a higher-performance aircraft against a nation-state military or even a more sophisticated guerrilla force, like Lebanon's Hezbollah – which used long-range rockets, anti-tank missiles, and an anti-ship cruise missile against Israel in 2006 – or for that matter the Afghan mujaheddin of the 1990s, with their CIA-provided Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.
So no one's suggesting replacing the JSF with LAS, or jets in general with propeller planes. Props are definitely a niche capability in modern warfare. But the Air Force refuses to even let them have that niche. Even assuming the Air Force exercises all its options, the Defense Department will spend less than $1 billion on just 35 Super Tucanos – some or all of which will be given to the Afghans – compared to $380 billion on 2,457 Joint Strike Fighters. The JSF is relevant to many more missions, but not to 380 times as many. The U.S. is finally out of Iraq and eying the exits in Afghanistan, but for good or ill the United States has a long history of involvement in ugly little wars around the world where it could use a plane like the LAS.
http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/03/air-force-buys-light-attack-planes-for-afghans-not-u-s/
Germany to Offer Fighters to Bulgaria
WEDNESDAY, 4 January 2012
The deal is for eight second-hand Eurofighters
It is expected that during his visit to Germany at the end of January PM Boyko Borissov would receive an attractive offer for used Eurofighters, The Standart learnt. The first visit of Bulgaria's premier for 2012 will be to Germany on January 17-18. He will meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel and during the private talks all bilateral issues will be discussed. During the meetings the details on the German offer for the fighters would be clarified. According to off-the- record information, the proposal includes training of Bulgarian pilots.
Germany is one of the four countries which manufacture Eurofighters. This is one of the most modern military aircraft in the world. The abilities of Eurofighter were demonstrated during the air show near the city of Plovdiv in September last year. In February, 2011, Bulgaria's defense ministry asked about the bids all manufacturers of Eurofighter for the delivery of 8 fighters. EADS consortium which manufactures Eurofigheter made an offer of 80 million euro per a brand new fighter. Later on, another manufacturer of Eurofighter, Italy, made an offer of 35 million euro for a second-hand fighter.Panayot Angarev
http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2012-01-04&article=38078
Citaat van: dudge op 03/01/2012 | 23:40 uur
Dat is dus de 1/2 - 1/3 van de prijs van de JSF, en dan heb je in veel situaties nog een beter toestel ook!
Dat is natuurlijk afhankelijk van welke uitvoering er wordt aangeboden.
Ik roep al langer dat het sur plus aan EF (dat kunnen ook geannuleerde nieuwe tranche 3 zijn) de moeite van het onderzoeken waard zijn.
Nadeel is dan wel weer het astronomische getal aan vlieguur kosten (waarbij het mij nog steeds niet duidelijk is hoe men aan dit exorbitante getal komt)
Citaat van: dudge op 03/01/2012 | 23:40 uur
Dat is dus de 1/2 - 1/3 van de prijs van de JSF, en dan heb je in veel situaties nog een beter toestel ook!
Geweldig toch.. de Bulgaren kunnen zich zo'n toestel gewoon niet veroorloven.
Hoe veel keer en hoelang denk je dat die toestellen zullen vliegen?
Voor zo ver ik weet hebben de Bulgaren nog niet eens hun tweedehandse Belgische fregatten en CMT betaald.
Ook lachwekkend hoe de Duitsers en Italianen snel hun "overtollige" toestellen properen te verpatsen,
terwijl ze ze in India gloednieuwe proberen aan te smeren :crazy:
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is set this week to reveal his strategy that will guide the Pentagon in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from its budget...
http://tinyurl.com/89y7e6b
"The chief target for weapons cuts is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, one of the most expensive weapons program in history. The Pentagon has plans to spend nearly $400 billion to buy 2,500 of the stealth jets through 2035, but reductions are expected.
The debate centers on how necessary the advanced stealth fighter really is and whether missions could be carried out with the less expensive F-16s. The main advantage of the F-35 is its ability to evade radar systems, making it difficult to shoot down — an attribute that is important only if the United States anticipates a war with another technologically advanced military.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16669.html
Het volledige artiekel staat in het topic: Amerika en haar problemen/Panetta to Offer Strategy for Cutting Military Budget
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/pentagon-to-present-vision-of-reduced-military.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/01/2012 | 23:45 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 03/01/2012 | 23:40 uur
Dat is dus de 1/2 - 1/3 van de prijs van de JSF, en dan heb je in veel situaties nog een beter toestel ook!
Dat is natuurlijk afhankelijk van welke uitvoering er wordt aangeboden.
Ik roep al langer dat het sur plus aan EF (dat kunnen ook geannuleerde nieuwe tranche 3 zijn) de moeite van het onderzoeken waard zijn.
Nadeel is dan wel weer het astronomische getal aan vlieguur kosten (waarbij het mij nog steeds niet duidelijk is hoe men aan dit exorbitante getal komt)
En dit is voor mij een reden om de EF niet in mijn top 3 te hebben.
aankoop is 1, maar onderhouden is nog belangrijker. EF aankoop = € 80- 100.000 euro en vlieg-uur kosten € 70.000,00
Libya Air Force, F-16, Rafale and JAS 39 Gripen (30 credits)
Posted on: Wed, Jan 04, 2012
Saab of Sweden is said to be holding contacts with the Libyan Air Force (LAF) to place offer for its JAS 39 Gripen multirole fighter jet.
http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/Libya_Air_Force_F-16_Rafale_and_JAS_39_Gripen/2400
Citaat van: Harald op 04/01/2012 | 13:39 uur
=En dit is voor mij een reden om de EF niet in mijn top 3 te hebben.
aankoop is 1, maar onderhouden is nog belangrijker. EF aankoop = € 80- 100.000 euro en vlieg-uur kosten € 70.000,00
Waarbij voor mij volkomen onduidelijk is waarom een vlieguur van een EF 2.5 keer duurder is dan die van een F15E?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 15:32 uur
Waarbij voor mij volkomen onduidelijk is waarom een vlieguur van een EF 2.5 keer duurder is dan die van een F15E?
Wordt nog wel erger met die euro..... :devil:
Citaat van: dudge op 04/01/2012 | 16:15 uur
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 04/01/2012 | 15:44 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 15:32 uur
Waarbij voor mij volkomen onduidelijk is waarom een vlieguur van een EF 2.5 keer duurder is dan die van een F15E?
Wordt nog wel erger met die euro..... :devil:
Ja, als de Euro weer gaat stijgen t.ov. de $ wel ja.
Zal trouwens met een reken methode te maken hebben, meen dat er eerder in het topic nog wel wat rekenvoorbeelden staan.
Er staan diverse reken methodes met evenzoveel verschillende uitkomsten. Ik lees net in een artiekel van Aviation week (wordt zo geplaatst) dat een vlieguur voor een Rafale € 40.000 is.
Germany to Offer Fighters to Bulgaria
The deal is for eight second-hand Eurofighters
It is expected that during his visit to Germany at the end of January PM Boyko Borissov would receive an attractive offer for used Eurofighters, The Standart learnt. The first visit of Bulgaria's premier for 2012 will be to Germany on January 17-18. He will meet with Chancellor Angela Merkel and during the private talks all bilateral issues will be discussed. During the meetings the details on the German offer for the fighters would be clarified. According to off-the- record information, the proposal includes training of Bulgarian pilots.
Germany is one of the four countries which manufacture Eurofighters. This is one of the most modern military aircraft in the world. The abilities of Eurofighter were demonstrated during the air show near the city of Plovdiv in September last year. In February, 2011, Bulgaria's defense ministry asked about the bids all manufacturers of Eurofighter for the delivery of 8 fighters. EADS consortium which manufactures Eurofigheter made an offer of 80 million euro per a brand new fighter. Later on, another manufacturer of Eurofighter, Italy, made an offer of 35 million euro for a second-hand fighter.
Jan 4th 2012
Bron: http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2012-01-04&article=38078
overigens zie ik dat Sukoi al in de race was om de SU35 en SU30 te leveren aan libie, maar dat was in 2010 zo.Er staan nog meer landen op trouwens.
http://old.nationaldefense.ru/5374/5513/index.shtml?id=6509
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 16:53 uur
overigens zie ik dat Sukoi al in de race was om de SU35 en SU30 te leveren aan libie, maar dat was in 2010 zo.Er staan nog meer landen op trouwens.
http://old.nationaldefense.ru/5374/5513/index.shtml?id=6509
meer landen ... jazeker .... Venezuela met 24 stuks Su-30MK2V (ontvangen in 2008), maar ze willen nog 24 Su-30MK2/Su-35 in een 2de batch
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 04/01/2012 | 15:44 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 15:32 uur
Waarbij voor mij volkomen onduidelijk is waarom een vlieguur van een EF 2.5 keer duurder is dan die van een F15E?
Wordt nog wel erger met die euro..... :devil:
Jazeker en ook voor onze (eventuele) aankoop van USDollar toestellen, wordt de euro-dollar verhouding er niet beter op.
Dus ook niet voor de besteding van ons budget 4,4 miljard euro voor de vervanger van de F-16
Citaat van: Harald op 04/01/2012 | 17:19 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 16:53 uur
overigens zie ik dat Sukoi al in de race was om de SU35 en SU30 te leveren aan libie, maar dat was in 2010 zo.Er staan nog meer landen op trouwens.
http://old.nationaldefense.ru/5374/5513/index.shtml?id=6509
meer landen ... jazeker .... Venezuela met 24 stuks Su-30MK2V (ontvangen in 2008), maar ze willen nog 24 Su-30MK2/Su-35 in een 2de batch
En dan maar hopen dat de BV NL geen "operationele" Klu inzet nodig heeft in de west.... anders rest ons niets dan de hulp in te roepen van de Amerikanen.
Citaat van: dudge op 04/01/2012 | 17:49 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 17:25 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 04/01/2012 | 17:19 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 16:53 uur
overigens zie ik dat Sukoi al in de race was om de SU35 en SU30 te leveren aan libie, maar dat was in 2010 zo.Er staan nog meer landen op trouwens.
http://old.nationaldefense.ru/5374/5513/index.shtml?id=6509
meer landen ... jazeker .... Venezuela met 24 stuks Su-30MK2V (ontvangen in 2008), maar ze willen nog 24 Su-30MK2/Su-35 in een 2de batch
En dan maar hopen dat de BV NL geen "operationele" Klu inzet nodig heeft in de west.... anders rest ons niets dan de hulp in te roepen van de Amerikanen.
Mwa, we hebben Patriots, LCF's en daarnaast nog F16's. Moet samen toch lukken om die SU30's tegen te houden.
Die 24 SU30's zal wel lukken, het verhaal wordt niet even iets anders als deze (tzt) versterkt worden met 24 (extra) SU35.
Citaat van: dudge op 04/01/2012 | 17:49 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 17:25 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 04/01/2012 | 17:19 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 16:53 uur
overigens zie ik dat Sukoi al in de race was om de SU35 en SU30 te leveren aan libie, maar dat was in 2010 zo.Er staan nog meer landen op trouwens.
http://old.nationaldefense.ru/5374/5513/index.shtml?id=6509
meer landen ... jazeker .... Venezuela met 24 stuks Su-30MK2V (ontvangen in 2008), maar ze willen nog 24 Su-30MK2/Su-35 in een 2de batch
En dan maar hopen dat de BV NL geen "operationele" Klu inzet nodig heeft in de west.... anders rest ons niets dan de hulp in te roepen van de Amerikanen.
Mwa, we hebben Patriots, LCF's en daarnaast nog F16's. Moet samen toch lukken om die SU30's tegen te houden.
maar dan moeten we alles inzetten wat we nog hebben, 3x Patriots , 2x LCF en 18 F-16's en wat houden we dan nog over ??
en bij een langdurig conflict .. aflossingen, versterkingen ? .... dan zal Nederland toch steun moeten vragen.
Hulp van de US zullen we vrijwel zeker nodig hebben bij een herrovering van de eilanden. Als we pech hebben kunnen we met maar 4 fregatten (van de 6) ten strijde trekken en die zijn te weinig om de landing-force met 2 LPD'S en 1 JSS te beschermen.
Van die 4 Fregatten die dan meegaan zullen er volgens mij ook nog 2 tot 3 verloren gaan als de Venezolanen moderne anti-schip raketten
zullen gebruiken zoals de Argentijnen toendertijd met hun exocets.
Kortom voor Nederland ..eigenschuld dikke bult...dat krijg je van jarenlang bezuiniging's ronde op bezuinigings ronde allemaal ten bate van linkse hobbies zoals ontwikkelingshulp en dat soort dingen.
Ik zie het Rutte zo al aan Obama vragen....."he Barrack !!!, kan je ons even helpen een paar eilanden te bevrijden?"
Ik denk dat jullie iets te optimistisch zijn, jullie houden namelijk geen rekening met S-300 missiles die Venzuela heeft aangeschaft, deze zijn beter als de Patriots en zijn in staat om het luchtruim boven de A,B,C eilanden af te sluiten.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090914/156118402.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 20:02 uur
Ik denk dat jullie iets te optimistisch zijn, jullie houden namelijk geen rekening met S-300 missiles die Venzuela heeft aangeschaft, deze zijn beter als de Patriots en zijn in staat om het luchtruim boven de A,B,C eilanden af te sluiten.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090914/156118402.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
ho.. ho.. maar wij hebben straks de flying turtle (F-35) het beste, het geavanceerde, het snelste gevechtsvliegtuig wat er is .... toch ?? :P
ja, die paar eilandjes kunnen Nederland wel enige hoofdbrekens bezorgen als het gaat om deze te beschermen of te heroveren, met ons huidige materieel.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 20:02 uur
Ik denk dat jullie iets te optimistisch zijn, jullie houden namelijk geen rekening met S-300 missiles die Venzuela heeft aangeschaft, deze zijn beter als de Patriots en zijn in staat om het luchtruim boven de A,B,C eilanden af te sluiten.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090914/156118402.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
En dat nog los van het feit dat als Venezuela deze inspiraties heeft ze zal uitvoeren (?) als er nauwelijks Nederlands ijzer in de omgeving is... een kwestie van oversteken en klaar.
Willen wij dan het zootje weer (zelfstandig) ontzetten dan dan zal de gehele KM en alles wat nog vliegt van de Klu moeten worden ingezet waarbij succes niet bepaald gegarandeerd is.
Willicht is wijsheid om wat meer defensieve middelen op de benedenwindse eilanden te plaatsen (Patriot, PzH 2000 etc) en op de bovenwindse eilanden een F16 (opvolger) detachement te stationeren.
Citaat van: Harald op 04/01/2012 | 20:30 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 20:02 uur
Ik denk dat jullie iets te optimistisch zijn, jullie houden namelijk geen rekening met S-300 missiles die Venzuela heeft aangeschaft, deze zijn beter als de Patriots en zijn in staat om het luchtruim boven de A,B,C eilanden af te sluiten.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090914/156118402.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
ho.. ho.. maar wij hebben straks de flying turtle (F-35) het beste, het geavanceerde, het snelste gevechtsvliegtuig wat er is .... toch ?? :P
ja, die paar eilandjes kunnen Nederland wel enige hoofdbrekens bezorgen als het gaat om deze te beschermen of te heroveren, met ons huidige materieel.
De F35 wordt gewoon een sitting duck volgens ausairpower
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 20:40 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 04/01/2012 | 20:30 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 04/01/2012 | 20:02 uur
Ik denk dat jullie iets te optimistisch zijn, jullie houden namelijk geen rekening met S-300 missiles die Venzuela heeft aangeschaft, deze zijn beter als de Patriots en zijn in staat om het luchtruim boven de A,B,C eilanden af te sluiten.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090914/156118402.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)
ho.. ho.. maar wij hebben straks de flying turtle (F-35) het beste, het geavanceerde, het snelste gevechtsvliegtuig wat er is .... toch ?? :P
ja, die paar eilandjes kunnen Nederland wel enige hoofdbrekens bezorgen als het gaat om deze te beschermen of te heroveren, met ons huidige materieel.
De F35 wordt gewoon een sitting duck volgens ausairpower
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
Precies. Ik pleit niet voor niets voor een apperaat wat ook in het A2A scenario z'n mannetje staat. En bij mijn beste weten is het beste westerse alternatief (naast de F22) de F15 en de EF (als tegenwicht voor de Su35 etc)
Ik zeg niets doen, weg met die Antillen.....
Als Chavez nu belt, zal ik die eilanden nog voor hem inpakken ook :devil:
Geachte leden,
Verzoeke de bijdragen hier te beperken tot de titel van het topic. Voor op-/aanmerkingen over de Antillen versus Venezuela, bestaat er reeds dit topic (http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/empty-t6779.0.html;msg251202#msg251202).
Lex
Algeheel beheerder
SU35 en PAK-FA... wat kan het westen er tegen over stellen?
Citaat van: dudge op 04/01/2012 | 23:07 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 22:51 uur
SU35 en PAK-FA... wat kan het westen er tegen over stellen?
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F22, F15, F18, E3.....
Kijk, als je met een Gripen een F22 uit de lucht krijgt, moet je met een EFT ook een SU35 wel uit de lucht krijgen.
De Gripen krijgt een F22 met een heel nest Gripens uit de lucht. Als ik kijk naar een één op één, dan hebben alleen de EF en de F15 een reëele kans tegen een SU35 en de F22 gaat het (wellicht) redden tegen de PAK-FA (deze laatste is natuurlijk alleen nog maar een demo kist en 10 jaar van een definitieve versie)
Als ik de Australische verhalen serieus neem, en blijkbaar is het daar goed onderzocht, dan heeft de westerse lucht-overheer-schappij in 2020/25 een enorm probleem.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 23:30 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 04/01/2012 | 23:07 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 22:51 uur
SU35 en PAK-FA... wat kan het westen er tegen over stellen?
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F22, F15, F18, E3.....
Kijk, als je met een Gripen een F22 uit de lucht krijgt, moet je met een EFT ook een SU35 wel uit de lucht krijgen.
De Gripen krijgt een F22 met een heel nest Gripens uit de lucht. Als ik kijk naar een één op één, dan hebben alleen de EF en de F15 een reëele kans tegen een SU35 en de F22 gaat het (wellicht) redden tegen de PAK-FA (deze laatste is natuurlijk alleen nog maar een demo kist en 10 jaar van een definitieve versie)
Als ik de Australische verhalen serieus neem, en blijkbaar is het daar goed onderzocht, dan heeft de westerse lucht-overheer-schappij in 2020/25 een enorm probleem.
Jurien je heb gelijk maar dat is de Jas Gripen 39 en niet de Gripen NG bovendien verwacht ik veel van IRIS-T missile en dan lange afstand missile Meteor die een bereik heeft van 100 km. de AIM-120 AMRAAM heeft een minder groot bereik
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Weapon_Systems/Air_to_Air_Weapon_Systems/IRIS_T_Short_Range_Air_to_Air_Missile/
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Weapon_Systems/Air_to_Air_Weapon_Systems/Meteor_Beyond_Visual_Range_Air_to_Air_Missile/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
Citaat van: dudge op 04/01/2012 | 23:58 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 23:30 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 04/01/2012 | 23:07 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/01/2012 | 22:51 uur
SU35 en PAK-FA... wat kan het westen er tegen over stellen?
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, F22, F15, F18, E3.....
Kijk, als je met een Gripen een F22 uit de lucht krijgt, moet je met een EFT ook een SU35 wel uit de lucht krijgen.
De Gripen krijgt een F22 met een heel nest Gripens uit de lucht. Als ik kijk naar een één op één, dan hebben alleen de EF en de F15 een reëele kans tegen een SU35 en de F22 gaat het (wellicht) redden tegen de PAK-FA (deze laatste is natuurlijk alleen nog maar een demo kist en 10 jaar van een definitieve versie)
Als ik de Australische verhalen serieus neem, en blijkbaar is het daar goed onderzocht, dan heeft de westerse lucht-overheer-schappij in 2020/25 een enorm probleem.
Dat heeft meer te maken met de aantallen. Als we hier straks vol trots onze 12 met moeite betaalbare F35's hebben staan, dan gaan we het daarmee nog afleggen tegen een zwerm Zero's.
Natuurlijk speelt het aantal een rol en met een handje vol JSF berijk je nu ook weer niet zo veel wat natuurlijk voor elk type geldt.
Ook de Amerikanen zullen van een koude kermis thuis komen als de F22 het in de echte wereld wordt geconfronteerd met een nummerieke overmacht , zo tegen 2025, van types als PAK-FA.
US to delay Lockheed F-35 planes again -sources
Thu, 5th Jan 2012 01:30
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is gearing up to restruc
ture Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program for a third time in three years, sources said, with production of more than 120 more planes to be postponed to save money and allow more time for development.
The latest changes should save the Pentagon about $15 billion from fiscal 2013 through 2017 and will be part of the fiscal 2013 budget plan to be sent to Congress in February, according to three sources familiar with planning for the Pentagon's largest weapons program.
President Barack Obama will join Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon on Thursday to discuss overall defense budget cuts and a revamped military strategy.
They are expected to mention the F-35 fighter plane and reiterate continued support for the program, but details of the restructuring plan and plans for other big weapons programs may not emerge until later this month, the sources said. The sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the plans publicly ahead of the official release of the president's budget.
Last month, Vice Admiral David Venlet, the Pentagon's program manager for the F-35, told online journal AOL Defense that production of the new airplane should slow until what he called a 'surprising' number of problems with it could be fixed.
Virginia-based defense consultant Jim McAleese said he expected the Pentagon to defer production of well over 120 F-35 fighter planes until later years, cutting the cost of the program by about 25 percent over that time period.
But he said it was crucial that the department was sticking to its overall target of buying 2,443 fighters for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. That, he said, would keep the unit cost of the airplane from rising dramatically and triggering a congressionally mandated review that could lead to the program's cancellation.
'Ultimately, the F-35 will survive, but there will be another significant delay in the production ramp up,' McAleese said.
The Pentagon's plan for the F-35 had called for production of 423 airplanes from 2013 through 2017 for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, excluding international orders.
The latest restructuring would delay work on over 120 of those planes, although international orders could offset some of the effect on Lockheed, McAleese said, adding that Japan's recent decision to order 42 F-35s 'couldn't have come at a better time.'
Rob Stallard, defense analyst with RBC Capital Markets, downgraded Lockheed's stock to 'underperform' on Wednesday, telling investors that as the Pentagon's largest supplier, Lockheed company faced a difficult year given continuing uncertainty about pending defense cuts.
Stallard said the F-35 program remained in the 'firing line' and a cut to the overall buy could be on the horizon. Moreover, negotiations between Lockheed and the Pentagon for a fifth batch of F-35 fighter jets would likely result in tougher terms for the company, he wrote in an analyst note.
Although Lockheed was committed to paying strong dividends, a steady stream of negative news on defense issues would likely cap the upside potential for the stock, Stallard wrote, noting that the stock was already trading near a year-high.
Lockheed shares fell $1.11, or 1.4 percent, to close at $80.91 on the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday.
Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said it was premature to discuss budget decisions, but said the program was continuing to make progress on its flight test program, and had logged over 2,200 hours in flight tests.
He said the first short-takeoff production plane, also known as the F-35B, was scheduled to arrive at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida on Friday.
Lockheed is building the F-35 warplane for the United States and eight partner countries: Britain, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Turkey, the Netherlands, Italy and Canada at a projected cost of $382 billion. Israel and Japan have also agreed to buy F-35 warplanes.
Altogether, Lockheed estimates that it could sell 800 to 1,500 of the new warplanes internationally.
http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=82kgxatateyhwjb&ArticleHeadline=US_to_delay_Lockheed_F35_planes_again_sources
Bulgaria Scraps Fighter Jets Buy for Culture's Sake
Domestic | January 4, 2012, Wednesday|
Bulgaria will not purchase new military aircraft in times of crisis and unless the problems in the education and culture sectors are solved.
The statement was made Wednesday by Bulgaria's Prime Minister, Boyko Borisov. Speaking in the Black Sea city of Burgas, where he inspected and officially opened the renovated building of the city's theater, Borisov said there are a number of theater buildings in the country, which have not been repaired in the last 60 years.
His words came on the heels of unofficial information, published by the Bulgarian Standard daily that during his forthcoming visit to Berlin on January 17 and 18, he will discuss with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, an offer for the purchase and the delivery of second-hand Eurofighter jets.
Germany is one of the four countries manufacturing the jets – one of the most modern fighters in the world. Last year, Bulgaria's Defense Ministry requested a price offer from all of them for the purchase of 8 Eurofighters.
Defense Minister, Anyu Angelov, said in a recent interview that the public procurement tender is postponed for 2013. The flight resource of the MiG-29 Bulgaria possesses expires in 2015.
"We have very good MiGs, in excellent condition, and great helicopters. With all my respect to military manufacturers, we invest our money in science, culture, archeology, so one of the most difficult talks with Merkel will be to explain that we cannot come up with EUR 150 M to pay for those jets in times of crisis," Borisov said in Burgas Wednesday.
He was accompanied by Deputy PM and Finance Minister, Simeon Djankov, Regional Minister, Lilyana Pavlova, and Culture Minister, Vezhdi Rashidov.
Djankov announced that the cabinet will slate BGN 120 000 for archeological sites on the southern Black Sea coast for initial research and after an assessment, additional funds will be granted to the most promising ones.
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=135398
Londen maakt zich zorgen over JSF
Laatste update: 6 januari 2012 05:25 info.
WASHINGTON - Groot-Brittannië vreest dat het gevechtsvliegtuig Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) later wordt geleverd door de nieuwe militaire strategie van de Verenigde Staten.
Dat heeft de Britse minister van Defensie Philip Hammond donderdag gezegd bij een bezoek aan Washington.
Groot-Brittannië wil een onbekend aantal JSF-straaljagers inzetten op een nieuw vliegdekschip. ''Het is echt de droom van een spotprenttekenaar, een vliegdekschip zonder vliegtuigen. Het vooruitzicht van nieuw uitstel baart ons dan ook zorgen'', verklaarde Hammond.
De VS zullen zich de komende jaren vooral richten op Azië, maakte de Amerikaanse president Barack Obama eerder donderdag bekend.
Radarsystemen
Washington zou daarbij vooral willen investeren in wapens waarmee de Amerikanen zijn opgewassen tegen Chinese raketten en radarsystemen.
Met de nieuwe strategie wil het Witte Huis miljarden bezuinigen op defensie. Dat gaat mogelijk ten koste van de JSF, hoewel Obama zich daar niet over uitliet.
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2708599/londen-maakt-zich-zorgen-jsf.html
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter delays could force Australia to revert to Super Hornet
by: Lanai Vasek
From:The Australian
January 06, 20121:36PM
AUSTRALIA may be forced to purchase more Super Hornet fighter-bombers to prevent a capability gap in the nation's air defences if work on the Joint Strike Fighter is further delayed due to a new US military strategy and budget plan.
Ambassador to the US Kim Beazley, who received a comprehensive briefing from American officials about the changes, conceded production of the stealthy, multi-role JSF now named the F-35 Lightning II may be impacted by the shift to a leaner US military.
"The meaning of what the President (Barack Obama) and (US Defence Secretary Leon) Panetta have had to say for the F35 program is not that there won't be one but that perhaps in the long term the numbers might change and come down bit," Mr Beazley, former defence minister from 1984-90, told ABC News.
"I don't expect that out of this will emerge delays to a successful conclusion of the project but it may have an impact on the cost structure. The impact on delivery, paradoxically, will probably be quite useful."
Australia plans to buy up to 100 F-35s for an estimated $16 billion and has so far ordered 14, with the RAAF's first squadron supposed to be operating by 2018.
Asked if Australia could fill the gap if the F-35s were not ready by that time by buying more Super Hornet fighter-bombers Mr Beazley indicated that was a possibility.
"Well that's of course for defence ministers rather than ambassadors to say but he is always, (Defence Minister Stephen) Smith has always made clear that he keeps options open in terms of addressing any capability gaps," Mr Beazley said.
Development of the revolutionary JSF was already running behind schedule in April last year when The Australian revealed the RAAF was contemplating purchasing 18 more Super Hornets for $1.5bn to fill the gap.
It is understood delivery may be pushed back even further when the proposed US defence budget for 2013 is announced in coming weeks. The budget is expected to detail $487bn in spending cuts and call for a slowing of the pace of production for the F-35 jet.
The Howard government bought 24 Super Hornets for $6bn in 2007 to fill an earlier strategic gap left when the RAAF's F-111 bombers were withdrawn ahead of time because of concerns about fatigue.
But the announcement overnight, which included a new strategic focus towards the Asia-Pacific, may mean Australia could need even more Super Hornets.
"The Americans are very clear that as they proceed with the F35 program they're under close watch by the Australian government and if at any point of time a risk develops to the capacity for Australia to be satisfied with the forcing being that it has for the air defence of Australia then the Australian government will take action," Mr Beazley said.
US company Lockheed Martin Corporation is building the F-35s which are packed with sophisticated radars and other electronic equipment.
The original plan was for Lockheed to build 2443 JSFs for various arms of the American forces with about 500 others going to allies including Britain, Australia, Israel and Canada.
British Defence Minister Philip Hammond today voiced concern about possible cuts or delays in the F-35 fighter program.
Mr Hammond, who is currently visiting Washington, said he would like to speak with Mr Panetta about the impact the US announcement could have on the JSF.
"One of the things I hope to understand in the meetings I am to have later today is what, if any, impact the announcements being made today will have on the Joint Strike Fighter program," Mr Hammond said.
Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston told The Australian Online he was "not concerned" that the progress of the JSF program would be hindered by the US announcement.
However he said America's shifted focus on the Asia-Pacific region would place extra responsibility on Australia.
"Australia is now under the microscope to step up," Senator Johnston said.
"With the current state of the navy and the disinterest of our Prime Minister in defence issues we are at risk of being found wanting."
Acting Defence Minister Warren Snowdon referred The Australian Online to Mr Beazley's comments.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/further-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-delays-could-force-australia-to-revert-to-the-super-hornet/story-e6frg8yo-1226238241670
India approves Mica missile buy, but slips fighter decision
India's Cabinet Committee on Security has authorised a deal to equip the country's Dassault Mirage 2000 fighters with MBDA Mica air-to-air missiles, although the deal has yet to be officially signed.
In an email, MBDA confirmed a deal for infrared and active radar guided versions of the weapon has been authorised by India's cabinet. No other details were provided.
News of the authorisation first appeared on Indian news websites on 5 January, citing unnamed sources. The reports suggested the deal values at about $1.2 billion for 450 to 500 missiles, although MBDA declined to comment on either figure. However, if accurate the buy would work out at a cost of approximately $2.7 million per round.
The missile purchase is related to India's July 2011 deal to upgrade 51 of its air force's Mirage 2000H aircraft to Dassault's Mirage 2000-9 standard. The cost of this deal, reportedly $2.2 billion, has drawn criticism in Indian defence circles.
Meanwhile, Indian media have reported that the nation's defence ministry has postponed announcing the winner of the air force's medium multi-role combat aircraft contest until late January.
Sources are reported as saying that Indian officials are still reviewing the commercial proposals for the 126-aircraft requirement. The Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are in contention.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-approves-mica-missile-buy-but-slips-fighter-decision-366605/
Citaat van: dudge op 06/01/2012 | 14:25 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/01/2012 | 14:13 uur
India approves Mica missile buy, but slips fighter decision
Mooie missile, maar jammer dat we nu bijna een maand zullen moeten speculeren welke keuze het gaat worden. Vraag me af wat er achter de schermen speelt, zou de ophouding intern zitten, zijn ze nog niet klaar met de berekeningen, of proberen de biedingen aangescherpt te krijgen?
Er zijn berichten te vinden dat de order naar een waarde gaat van $ 20 mjd en spculaties (van Russische en Duitse zijde) dat de deal de prullenbak in zou kunnen gaan vanwege aanzienlijke budgettaire overschreiding. (geruchten of wishfull thinking, met name van de Russen die met hun MIG 35 graag weer in the picture staan)
Citaat van: dudge op 06/01/2012 | 15:16 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/01/2012 | 14:31 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 06/01/2012 | 14:25 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/01/2012 | 14:13 uur
India approves Mica missile buy, but slips fighter decision
Mooie missile, maar jammer dat we nu bijna een maand zullen moeten speculeren welke keuze het gaat worden. Vraag me af wat er achter de schermen speelt, zou de ophouding intern zitten, zijn ze nog niet klaar met de berekeningen, of proberen de biedingen aangescherpt te krijgen?
Er zijn berichten te vinden dat de order naar een waarde gaat van $ 20 mjd en spculaties (van Russische en Duitse zijde) dat de deal de prullenbak in zou kunnen gaan vanwege aanzienlijke budgettaire overschreiding. (geruchten of wishfull thinking, met name van de Russen die met hun MIG 35 graag weer in the picture staan)
Ja, het zou kunnen dat ze nog geen goed excuus bedacht hebben (gooien op: 'we kunnen het niet betalen' zullen ze niet doen ivm eer denk ik). Tot de deal echt rond is kan er nog van alles gebeuren, maar ik denk niet dat het bedrag een groot genoeg probleem is voor de Indiërs om er van af te zien.
Dat verwacht ik ook niet. Het zou fijn zijn als de kogel door de kerk gaat en er een Europees feestje gebouwd kan worden.
Citaat van: dudge op 06/01/2012 | 14:25 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/01/2012 | 14:13 uur
India approves Mica missile buy, but slips fighter decision
Mooie missile, maar jammer dat we nu bijna een maand zullen moeten speculeren welke keuze het gaat worden. Vraag me af wat er achter de schermen speelt, zou de ophouding intern zitten, zijn ze nog niet klaar met de berekeningen, of proberen de biedingen aangescherpt te krijgen?
Mss toch een (lichte) voorsprong voor de Rafale dan, mits de MICA tot nog toe enkel inzetbaar is op bv Rafale, Mirage-2000 (zonder aanpassingen) ?
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 06/01/2012 | 16:20 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 06/01/2012 | 14:25 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/01/2012 | 14:13 uur
India approves Mica missile buy, but slips fighter decision
Mooie missile, maar jammer dat we nu bijna een maand zullen moeten speculeren welke keuze het gaat worden. Vraag me af wat er achter de schermen speelt, zou de ophouding intern zitten, zijn ze nog niet klaar met de berekeningen, of proberen de biedingen aangescherpt te krijgen?
Mss toch een (lichte) voorsprong voor de Rafale dan, mits de MICA tot nog toe enkel inzetbaar is op bv Rafale, Mirage-2000 (zonder aanpassingen) ?
Op aanschaf prijs en exploitatie lijkt de Rafale voor te liggen op de EF, de vraag is welke politieke belangen zwaarwegender zijn.
JSF Program Racks Up Another Win With Turkey Deal
By Carlo Munoz
Published: January 6, 2012
WASHINGTON: Its been a good couple of weeks for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's international program.
Turkish military officials this week approved a deal with JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin to buy two new A-model F-35s, according to recent news reports.Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed off on the deal late yesterday. It remains unclear whether these initial Turkish fighters will be used for training or combat operations, according to those reports.
These F-35s will be the first of many Turkey plans to procure over the next few years as a member of the JSF international coalition. Turkey is one of the original eight foreign nations to sign onto the global fighter effort. Other countries include the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway. JSF sales to Ankara could top $16 billion over the life of the program, if Turkey buys all the F-35s its planning to. The jets will replace the legacy F-16 fighters that make up the majority of the Turkish air forces.
The Turkish deal comes weeks after Japan agreed to become the newest member of the F-35 coalition. The Japanese ministry of defense selected the JSF over Boeing's F/A-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its legacy F-4 Phantoms in December. The Japanese Air Self-Defense Force plans to buy between 40 to 50 F-35s over the life of the deal. F-35 program officials are also looking at getting procurement deals in place for South Korea and Singapore.
In spite of these recent successes, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey has expressed concern over the F-35's international partnerships, particularly those in Europe.
The unfolding economic crisis threatening the European Union could put many of the JSF program's partners at risk, Dempsey said last month.
At the time, Dempsey did not say whether JSF partner nations would be forces to abandon the program or cut their planned purchases because of the ongoing crisis. But he did note the EU economic crisis was cause for concern inside the Pentagon. "They would have to make some decisions . . . on the reallocation of resources that could potentially affect the JSF," he said.
http://defense.aol.com/2012/01/06/jsf-program-racks-up-another-win-with-turkey-deal/
De JSF is straks toch gewoon kansloos tegen zijn Russische tegenstanders zoals de Mig-35, Su-35 's , laat staan tegen de T-50 ?....wat heb je er dan aan vraag ik me af, zo'n duur toestel en dan nog niet eens de baas kunnen zijn in de lucht.
Soms is velies nemen en ergens mee stoppen moeilijk ..maar ik vindt dat we het gewoon moeten doen...de JSF was en is een geflopt project dat veel te duur dreigt te worden en technisch nu al achter loopt.
Beter kiezen voor ander toestel zoals de F-15, of de Gripen (die mijn voorkeur heeft)
Seoul Orders 20 FA-50 Attack Aircraft In a $600 Million Deal
With the New Year barely underway, South Korea is once again demonstrating a determination to build a formidable military force capable of dealing with potential enemies. The government has signed a $600 million deal with Korea Aerospace Industries (KIA) for 20 FA-50 fighter/attack aircraft based on the highly regarded T-50 advanced jet trainer.
KAI is reporting that the aircraft will be delivered between 2013 and 2014. The FA-50 is a lightweight fighter/attack aircraft incorporating the most advanced technology available in the T-50 Golden Eagle family of aircraft.
KAI also believes that South Korea may increase the order to as many as 60 aircraft for use as replacements for the aging 150 Northrop F-5 aircraft currently being operated.
The FA-50 aircraft ordered are expected to be equipped with the Link 16 tactical link, Elta Systems EL/M-2032 pulse Doppler radar, radar warning systems and a night vision imagery system. Northrop Grumman and Raytheon previously selected the FA-50 as a prime candidate for being outfitted with the same version of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar slated for use in a United States Air Force F-16 upgrade.
The FA-50 is built to carry a weapon's payload of 9,920 pounds that includes Boeing's Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Textron's CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon. In addition, the FA-50 is also fitted with a 20mm cannon and is configured to carry air-to-air missiles.
KAI has also included in the Golden Eagle family, along with the T-50 and the FA-50, a T-50B aerobatic aircraft and an armed TA-50. All versions of the Golden Eagle family feature a single General Electric F404 engine.
South Korea is expected to issue a call for bids for its F-X III project in February to select a replacement for its F-4 Phantom jets. The candidates competing for this lucrative contract include the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle, Lockheed Martin F-35, Sukhoi PAK FA, and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
http://defense-update.com/20120106_south-korea-orders-20-fa-50-attack-aircraft-in-600-million-deal.html
het gaat dus om een geüpgrade Trainer die met een Scalable Agile Beam Radar van northrop-grumman wordt uitgerust?
http://www.koreaaero.com/english/business/t50_01.asp
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/sabr/
Jan 4/12: FA-50 Ordered.
Flight International reports that South Korea has placed a $600 million order for 20 FA-50 fighters. This is the 1st order for the new type, and KAI will reportedly deliver the aircraft from 2013 – 2014.
So far, Flight International is the sole source for this report. South Korean orders could eventually swell to over 100 FA-50s, as the ROKAF seeks to replace its F-5E/Fs. This could also help in competitions like Poland's, by broadening KAI's in-production T-50 family technology options
Korea's T-50
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_T-50_3-view_lg.gif
With a length of 43 feet and a wingspan of 30 feet, the 2-seat T-50 is about 4 feet shorter than the F-16; overall, it's only about 80% of the F-16's size. The relative size of the control surfaces and tails are larger, however, to improve handling characteristics at lower speeds and make the aircraft easier to land. Larger landing gear is also fitted, to absorb harder landings, which is to be expected from student pilots. Its form's resemblances to Lockheed Martin's F-16 are suggestive, and include the blended mid-set wing, complete with leading-edge root extensions and rear 'shelf' fairings ending in F-16-style split airbrakes. The air intake layout on the sides is somewhat similar to the F/A-18 Hornet or Northrop's excellent but ill-fated F-20A Tigershark, and the aircraft is powered by the same engine: GE's popular, reliable and fuel-efficient F404, with slight improvements over the F404-GE-402 to enhance single-engine redundancy and reliability.
The T-50 family's empty weight is 14,000 pounds, and maximum takeoff gross weight is 29,700 pounds; the F404-GE-102 engine produces 17,700 pounds of thrust. Maximum rate of climb is 39,000 feet per minute; and the maximum speed is Mach 1.5. Service ceiling is 48,500 feet, the design load factor is 8gs, and the trainer airframe is designed for up to 10,000-hour service life (8,344 hours for the A-50).
the plane is designed to be a trainer, with better rear visibility than a 2-seat F-16. An "active stick" ensures that stick movements in the front or rear are transmitted to the stick in the other seat, to improve monitoring and learning. Embedded training features, in-flight recording and post-mission debriefing capability are all built in. The standard tools of a modern fighter pilot's trade are likewise present: "glass cockpit" of digital screens, HUD (Head Up Displays), HOTAS (Hands On Stick And Throttle) control systems to keep everything at the pilot's fingertips, triple-redundant electrical system, fly-by-wire, advanced radio and navigation systems including INS/GPS, and a Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seat. The seat back angle is 17 degrees – similar to the seat angles of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22.
The F/A-50 is also a joint KAI/ Lockheed Martin project, and the associated agreements includes a number of restrictive terms. One is that Lockheed will not transfer aircraft source code to other nations. Another is that the T-50's capabilities cannot exceed Korea's F-16s, though proposals to give the KF-16s AESA radar retrofits could break that logjam. A 3rd provision banned South Korea from integrating T-50 variants with non-U.S. technology that the United States doesn't have.
Instead of Selex Galileo UK's Vixen 500E AESA radar, therefore, the first F/A-50s will use IAI's popular EL/M-2032 multi-mode radar, installed by Lockheed Martin. It will be coupled to additional datalinks like Link-16, a weapons management system, radar warning receivers, and a MIL-STD-1760 databus. FA-50s will also be able to carry additional electronic countermeasures equipment, and specialty pods like LITENING or Sniper ATP for targeting, surveillance, etc. Weapons will include the same lightweight 3-barreled M61 20mm gun, AIM-9 Sidewinder air-air missiles, rockets, Mk80 family bombs, and AGM-65 Maverick missiles carried by the TA-50. The enhanced radar, databus, and related systems will expand the FA-50's range of potential weapons by adding GPS-guided weapons like JDAM bombs, WCMD cluster bombs, JSOW glide bombs, etc. They're also likely to enable the addition of AIM-120 AMRAAM air-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, and other advanced armaments.
Any FA-50 exports to Arab countries would have to use the AN/APG-67v4 radar and Sniper-SE surveillance and targeting pod from Lockheed, however, as the Israeli-designed radar and LITENING pods will not be an option. As advanced AESA radars become more mainstream in the global military market, the lack of an AESA option is also likely to cost the F/A-50 orders, unless KAI and Lockheed Martin come to an agreement. Proposals to upgrade the ROKAF's KF-16s with AESA radars could offer a way out of the impasse.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-t-50-spreads-its-wings-04004/#program
Dit toestel heeft zeker kansen in de export markt
U.S. Navy and U.K. Royal Navy F-35 unable to get aboard ship
January 8, 2012 (by Eric L. Palmer) - The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier. This also poses a risk to the U.K. aircraft carrier program which is supposed to use the F-35C at the end of the decade.
CF-1 takes off on its first flight on June 6, 2010. Pilot for the 57 minute flight was Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Jeff Knowles.
Back in 2007, a Lockheed Martin year in review video stated that the F-35C carrier variant (CV) JSF had passed critical design review (CDR). The video and similar public statements said, "2007 saw the completion of the critical design review for the F-35C. The completion of CDR is a sign that each F-35 variant is mature and ready for production."
Yet, a November 2011 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) quick-look report relating to engineering challenges arising from what is being called "concurrency issues" revealed that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C CV JSF could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed.
The report also mentions that the tail hook on the F-35C CV JSF is attached improperly to the aircraft. The distance from the hook to the main landing gear is so short that it is unlikely the aircraft will catch the landing wires on a ship's deck. This graphic from the review explains part of the problem. It illustrates the distance between the main landing gear and the tail hook of previous warplanes qualified to operate from aircraft carriers and compares these distances with that found on the F-35C CV JSF. In this regard, the report refers to the F-35C CV JSF as "an outlier".
An industry expert who is a graduate Flight Test Engineer (FTE) of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School (USNTPS), Peter Goon, stated that, "Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality that was being sought between the three variant designs and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements."
He also points to well known and well understood military specifications that address tail hook design requirements, such as MIL-A-81717C and MIL-D-8708C.
When asked how such things could have been missed, Peter suggested they likely weren't, at least by the engineers, but their concerns would have just as likely been ignored.
He said this should come as no surprise, given the level of stove-piping that had been applied to the F-35 program's engineer community and the dominance of "form over substance" and "a total indifference to what is real" being hallmarks of the program – "Affordability is the cornerstone of the JSF Program" being but one example.
It is highly probable that this design fault could be the last straw for the F-35C. The program will attempt some more rolling tests with a different hook design, but this does not address the problem of the poor location of the tail hook on the airframe.
Other F-35 program problems identified in the QLR Report included the helmet visual cueing which is seriously affected by design issues and airframe buffet in the heart of the combat envelope. Also, all F-35 variants suffer from paper-thin weight margins, unsafe fuel dumping, flight restrictions on diving, speed and proximity to lightning hazards to name a few. And, it can only be flown during the daytime.
An August 2011 DOD F-35 program briefing revealed that the engineers will have to be reorganized because they were not getting access to all the information/data they needed for design nor, it would appear, were organised and structured in an environment that was being properly managed and transparent. This reorganisation should complete in 2012.
The program's pilot training program was supposed to start at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida in 2011 after previous delays. With the design issues mentioned above, pilot training is effectively grounded due to safety concerns. There is no known date when pilot training can start. This along with the aircrafts engineering defects strongly suggest that it will be a long time until military services see any F-35 variant in a go-to-war configuration.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4494.html
PICTURE: Lockheed reveals concept aircraft for post-F-22 replacement
By
Stephen Trimble
on January 4, 2012 9:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis
Lockheed Martin's 2012 calendar -- which your blogger received in the mail but casually deposited, unopened, in the trash -- contained the company's first concept design for a sixth generation fighter to succeed the F-22 after 2030.
Call her "Miss February".
The US Air Force has already started the search for the F-X fighter to replace the F-22 after 2030. Boeing and Northrop Grumman have already revealed their concept designs. But the conceptual ideas of the USAF's sole fighter supplier had been a closely guarded mystery. Conceptual aircraft designs should not be mistaken for prototype blueprints, but they do offer some insight into the starting assumptions and philosophies.
We asked Lockheed to describe the philosophy behind this concept drawing. Here is the company's emailed response in full:
This concept originates from our Advanced Development Programs group called the Skunk Works®. The Skunk Works primary objective is to aggressively pursue next generation technology programs and conduct research and development that will allow it to rapidly respond to customer needs. U.S. 5th generation fighters are now operational with the F-22 in the USAF and F-35 soon to be operational for USAF, USN, USMC and our international partners. As with the 4th generation fighters (F-15, F-16, F-18), 5th Gen is poised for growth, and will go through a process of capability upgrades over their service lives. As such, they will be operationally relevant for decades to come. Even with that, it is time to start looking at the technologies that will provide the next quantum leap in capabilities for the next generation of fighters (IOC ~ 2030+). Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap in capability. These improvements are already being looked at for our 5th generation fighters.
Future fighter requirements are not set and will depend on assessments of future threats that may emerge in the 2030 time frame. Greatly increased speed, longer range, extended loiter times, multi-spectral stealth, ubiquitous situation awareness, and self-healing structures and systems are some of the possible technologies we envision for the next generation of fighter aircraft. Next generation fighter capabilities will be driven by game changing technological breakthroughs in the areas of propulsion, materials, power generation, sensors, and weapons that are yet to be fully imagined. This will require another significant investment in research and development from a standpoint of both time and money. We will continue to investigate technologies that demonstrate great promise, and work closely with our customers to define the future operational concepts and requirements that the next generation of fighter aircraft must fulfill.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/picture-lockheed-reveals-conce.html
Zie de link voor het plaatje.
Werkt op mijn lachspieren....
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 08/01/2012 | 10:08 uur
Werkt op mijn lachspieren....
Het concept van LM of de mega problemen voor de F35C (of beide)?
Beiden!
Lockheed reveals bold technology plans with 6th-gen fighter concept
By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC
09:13 4 Jan 2012
Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division has revealed a conceptual next-generation fighter design that offers the first hints of an ambitious, long-term technology strategy for the new class of tactical aircraft that will emerge after 2030.
The concept - published in a 2012 calendar distributed to journalists - indicates the company will continue to seek new breakthroughs in performance despite the risk-averse culture of today's weapons buyers in the US military.
Featuring an F-22-like nose, an unusually contoured wing and nearly flat canted tails, the concept suggests a new level of speed and agility.
Lockheed also seemed to take a thinly-veiled shot at a next generation fighter concept released in September by Boeing, which showed a manned and optionally manned, tailless fighter with a conventional wing.
"Simply removing the pilot from an aircraft or introducing incremental improvements in signature and range does not constitute a generational leap in capability," Lockheed said in response to Flightglobal's questions.
"These improvements are already being looked att for our fifth generation fighters," the company added.
Instead, possible technologies for a next-generation fighter should include "greatly increased speed", more range and new features like self-healing structures and multi-spectral stealth, the company said.
Such capabilities must be supported by new breakthroughs in propulsion, materials, power generation and weapons, Lockheed said, adding some of these are "yet to be fully imagined".
Lockheed acknowledged that breakthrough performance will not come cheap.
"This will require another significant investment in research and development from a standpoint of time and money," the company said.
So far, USAF leaders have not been committal about plans for a sixth-generation fighter to replace the F-22 after 2030. The air force is instead focused on buying 1,763 F-35As to replace the F-16 and A-10 fleets. New development funding is largely devoted to fielding a next generation bomber by the end of the decade.
Meanwhile, the USAF has initiated the first steps towards working on a next generation fighter. In November 2010, the Air Combat Command asked companies to submit ideas for the technologies and performance for a new fighter that would appear in 20 years. The Air Force Research Laboratory also is funding research on basic technologies that could feed into a sixth generation fighter programme.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-reveals-bold-technology-plans-with-6th-gen-fighter-concept-366533/
Interesant filmpje over de F35 versus de SU35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M&feature=player_embedded#!
Dogfights F-22 vs Su-35 MUST SEE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXZtCmA_r84&feature=related
The New U.S. Defense Strategy And The F-35
11:47 GMT, January 8, 2012 (Released Jan. 4, 2012) | Tomorrow, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will unveil the Pentagon's new defense strategy. Whatever its merits, it is clear that the new strategy is driven not by substantive changes in the international security environment but by the shrinking U.S. defense budget. Whatever Panetta puts forward is meant to narrow the focus of U.S. defense activities, thereby allowing reductions in military forces to match a declining resource base.
One of the key questions is what the new strategy and associated force posture will mean for major defense acquisition programs. The expectation is the more money is involved in a program, the greater the likelihood that it will get cut. Defense budgeteers are like bank robbers: they go where the money is.
One program seemingly on every commentator's hit list is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). At more than $350 billion over its planned production life it is the largest procurement program today. Some pundits assert, erroneously, that the U.S does not need the F-35 and it can get by with upgraded versions of the F-15, 16 and 18. The idea of the world's premier military having to rely for the next thirty years on fourth-generation fighters designed in the 1970s and 1980s when other nations are building fifth-generation aircraft is puzzling to say the least. Even many of those who believe the F-35 is needed propose slowing the program down, reducing the overall buy or cutting one or possibly two of the three JSF variants.
Both these positions are wrong. The F-35 program is the single most important acquisition program of the next 25 years. The JSF will ensure U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years. In addition, the short take-off/vertical landing variant, the F-35B, will allow the Marine Corps to maintain its proven Air-Ground Task Force concept and permit the Navy to employ its large deck amphibious warships as virtual mini-aircraft carriers.
Equally important, foreign sales of the F-35 will be a powerful attractive force holding together U.S. regional alliances and bilateral security relationships. In the hands of U.S. NATO allies, Japan, Australia, Israel and possibly South Korea, India and even Taiwan, the F-35 will not only help those nations ensure their security but create a set of institutional relationships involving training, maintenance and logistics that will benefit both them and the United States.
The JSF is the one program the Pentagon cannot afford to cut. Shrinking the size of the U.S. fighter fleet increases the importance of fielding the most advanced fifth-generation fighter. If anything the Pentagon needs to put more money into the F-35 program. Additional resources would go to buying back the approximately 100 F-35s that should have been procured by now on the programs original schedule, as well as to ensuring adequate testing and fixing concurrency issues.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31099/?SID=bf37af45b51fa04f849a8dee698dfdea
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/01/2012 | 15:41 uur
The New U.S. Defense Strategy And The F-35
The JSF is the one program the Pentagon cannot afford to cut. Shrinking the size of the U.S. fighter fleet increases the importance of fielding the most advanced fifth-generation fighter. If anything the Pentagon needs to put more money into the F-35 program. Additional resources would go to buying back the approximately 100 F-35s that should have been procured by now on the programs original schedule, as well as to ensuring adequate testing and fixing concurrency issues.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31099/?SID=bf37af45b51fa04f849a8dee698dfdea
Seriously..... Volgens mij is de auteur een beetje :crazy: Het gaat ten koste van alle andere wapenprogramma's en voeten op de vloer. Het einde van het Failure-35 drama is nog steeds niet in zicht. Het holt de US krijgsmacht van binnen uit.
Hier een kaartje (gedateerd op okt 2011) met een overzicht in jaren van contract/bestelling tot levering en Compleet Combat Readyness van de F-35 in Canada. uitgaande nog steeds van 65 toestellen.
Als Canada besteld had in december 2011, dan zijn de de eerste toestellen in productie in 2017 en worden de eerste leveringen gedaan van F-35 in 2019, de laatste leveringen in 2022 en zijn alle F-35 toestellen, dus alle squadrons Combat Ready in 2025 (eerste toestellen in 2021)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16694.html
Als Nederland kiest en besteld in 2015, dus ruim 3 jaar later dan in deze planning, dan zou (met verhoogde productie) Nederland zijn eerste toestellen Combat Ready hebben in 2022/23 (denk ik, met de planning zoals hij nu in bovenstaande pdf getoond wordt. dit kan altijd nog veranderen gezien de nodige vertragingen die geweest zijn in al de afgelopen jaren)
Nederland heeft 2 test toestellen, in 1x LRIP 3 en 1x LRIP 4
LRIP 1,2 en 3 = Block 1 (initial training capability)
- basic navigation, basic communication, basic sensors
- wepons : none (simulation only)
LRIP 4 - 7 = Block 2 ( initial warfighting capability)
- basic CAS/interdiction, initial air-to-air capability
- weapons : amraam/JDAM/GBU-12 (internal)
LRIP 8 en verder = Block 3 (full warfighting capability en exportable)
- multi ship DEAD, air-to-ground and air-to-air capability
- weapons : full complement internal/external ordnance
Het testen voor Block 3 wordt afgerond in midden 2016 zo is de planning nu, zie blad 3 in onderstaande pdf
(deze planning is/geeft geen garantie in/voor de toekomst)
Dus met LRIP 3 kun je alleen testen kwa vliegbewegingen/gedrag, met LRIP 4 kun je iets meer en tevens gedeeltelijk wapens testen. wel alleen intern nog niet extern. Bij LRIP 8 wordt het past echt interessant, want dan zijn de meeste systemen geintergreerd in het toestel en kun je meer mission-gericht testen.
http://www.ndiagulfcoast.com/events/archive/37th_symposium/Day2/14ThompsonAirArmSymOct2011.pdf
Ik ben zeer benieuwd of deze planningen allemaal haalbaar zullen zijn en hoe de productie (aantallen) zullen worden.
Tevens lees je overal nog dat Nederlands 85 toestellen zal aanschaffen en UK 138 toestellen, we weten allemaal dit dit niet zo zal zijn
Citaat van: Harald op 09/01/2012 | 11:35 uur
Ik ben zeer benieuwd of deze planningen allemaal haalbaar zullen zijn en hoe de productie (aantallen) zullen worden.
Tevens lees je overal nog dat Nederlands 85 toestellen zal aanschaffen en UK 138 toestellen, we weten allemaal dit dit niet zo zal zijn
Ongeacht het type zullen het er niet meer worden dan 68 voor de BV Nederland.
Seoul readies F-X III RFP
By: Greg Waldron Singapore
South Korea could issue a request for proposal for its F-X III competition for 62 fighter aircraft as soon as next week.
An industry source indicates that the RFP could be issued on 16 February, although Seoul's Defence Acquisition Program Administration has not given a specific date.
Four aircraft are likely to compete in the F-X III competition: the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle, the Lockheed Martin F-35, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Sukhoi PAK FA. The RFP could also include a section dealing with the various contenders' offset proposals for helping Seoul with its indigenous KF-X programme.
Industry observers have said that the favourites to win the competition to replace Seoul's McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms are the F-15SE and F-35. They say Seoul's historic defence relationship with Washington will favour the two American aircraft. The Typhoon is viewed as an outsider, while the PAK FA is seen as having virtually no chance of winning.
One factor that could influence Seoul's decision is Japan's recent decision to obtain the F-35 over the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter to fulfil its 42 aircraft F-X requirement. Some industry observers have said that Seoul will be heavily influenced by Japan's decision, others that its impact will be negligible.
At the Seoul Air Show in late 2011, Boeing and Lockheed Martin stressed different missions for F-X III. Boeing said its F-15SE offers enough stealth for operations early in a war, and can then, when stealth is no longer needed, be quickly configured to carry a heavy payload of standoff ground attack weapons. Lockheed stressed low altitude missions in enemy territory where the F-35's stealth capabilities would be of great utility.
Korea Aerospace Industries is in the second year of a technology development phase for KF-X, an aircraft that is being designed replace the F-4 and F-5. KF-X will be a medium sized fighter, that KAI has said will be in the "KF-16 class."
Seoul has already signed Indonesia as a 20% partner on the programme. Jakarta's involvement in the project could affect the transfer of technology F-X III bidders are willing to offer for the KF-X programme.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/seoul-readies-f-x-iii-rfp-366654/
France Plans Buying Airbus Tankers; Optimistic on Rafale Sales .
PARIS (Dow Jones)--France plans to buy airborne refueling tankers made by the military arm of Airbus, and there are no obstacles in the way of sales of French-made Rafale multirole combat jets to India, the United Arab Emirates and Brazil, Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said Monday.
"The purchase order [for the tankers] is likely to be made in 2013, for delivery four years later," Longuet told a meeting of aerospace journalists. He gave no details of the number of Airbus multi-role tanker transport, or MRTT, planes that are likely to be ordered, but noted that the tankers are well-adapted for "mutualized" operations with the armed forces of other friendly countries.
The French military procurement agency DGA has also been looking at tankers made by Airbus rival Boeing Co (BA) of the U.S. The MRTT is a derivative of the Airbus A330-200 commercial airliner that can double as an airborne gas station for combat aircraft and as a cargo airlifter. It can also be adapted to carry passengers. Airbus, a wholly-owned division of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EAD.FR), has sold the plane to Australia, the U.K., Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. One year ago, the U.S. opted to buy Boeing tankers over those of Airbus in a $35 billion deal.
Longuet said negotiations on the sale of Rafale fighters to India, the UAE and Brazil are continuing, and there are no obstacles in the way of concluding these sales.
A positive decision of the UAE to buy Dassault Aviation SA's (AM.FR) Rafale combat jets could potentially lead to knock-on sales to neighboring Gulf states like Qatar, who plan to renew their combat aircraft fleets, he said. A decision by the UAE authorities is likely within a timespan that would allow the air forces of neighboring states that want interoperability with the UAE to then decide on their own procurement. But he stressed that sales to other Gulf states are only likely if the UAE picks the Rafale, which is competing with the Typhoon made by the Eurofighter consortium.
Longuet said French arms export sales last year were "satisfactory," increasing to around EUR6.5 billion from EUR5 billion in 2010.
-David Pearson, Dow Jones Newswires; +331 4017 1751, david.pearson@dowjones.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120109-703913.html
France still looking for Rafale buyers in GCC
French defence minister says Qatar, Kuwait are interested in buying Rafale fighters, pending UAE's decision to go ahead first.
France has raised concerns over the future of the Rafale programme
PARIS - Qatar and Kuwait are interested in buying French Rafale fighter jets but are waiting to see whether the United Arab Emirates will make a purchase first, France's defence minister said Monday.
"They are in effect interested but they won't know for sure until the first one jumps in," minister Gerard Longuet said.
He said he hoped the UAE, which is talks with France to buy 60 Rafales, would make a decision "within a timeframe that will allow its two neighbours, which hope to be interoperable with the Emirates, to make decisions".
Industry experts have estimated that Kuwait needs 18-22 new fighter jets and that Qatar needs 24.
After opening talks on the purchase in 2008, the UAE said in November that the offer for Rafales from France's Dassault Aviation was uncompetitive and opened up the tender to competition.
France has raised concerns over the future of the Rafale programme, which has struggled to find foreign buyers to support a project that has so far cost more than 40 billion euros ($51 billion).
Longuet warned in December that production on the multi-role fighter could halt if it remains unable to sell any abroad.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=49907
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 09/01/2012 | 16:27 uur
France still looking for Rafale buyers in GCC
French defence minister says Qatar, Kuwait are interested in buying Rafale fighters, pending UAE's decision to go ahead first.
Om wille van continuïteit van de Europese fighterindustrie zou het een goede zaak zijn als Desault met de Rafale een (aantal) order(s) op korte termijn weet te realiseren.
En daarna snel de koppen bij elkaar om te komen tot één of twee nieuwe Europese concepten voor na 2030/35.
http://defensetech.org/2012/01/05/lockheeds-6th-gen-fighter/
Dat plaatje wat Lockheed laat zien, lijkt me uitelkaar getrokken.
Het voorste gedeelte met cockpit is te lang, te dun, misschien komt het ook wel door de lange smalle neus.
Een uitelkaar gerekte YF-23 ? en YF-23 was al 20,6 m1
F-22 is 18,9 m1, deze fighter 23 m1 ???
Kan me niet voorstellen dat dit hem wordt in 2030.
Citaat van: Harald op 09/01/2012 | 17:15 uur
http://defensetech.org/2012/01/05/lockheeds-6th-gen-fighter/
Dat plaatje wat Lockheed laat zien, lijkt me uitelkaar getrokken.
Het voorste gedeelte met cockpit is te lang, te dun, misschien komt het ook wel door de lange smalle neus.
Een uitelkaar gerekte YF-23 ? en YF-23 was al 20,6 m1
F-22 is 18,9 m1, deze fighter 23 m1 ???
Kan me niet voorstellen dat dit hem wordt in 2030.
Het lijkt op een mix van de YF23 en de Mig 31 Firefox?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_(film)
http://thinkinrussian.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLET7eueh08&feature=related
Citaat van: Harald op 09/01/2012 | 17:15 uur
http://defensetech.org/2012/01/05/lockheeds-6th-gen-fighter/
Dat plaatje wat Lockheed laat zien, lijkt me uitelkaar getrokken.
Het voorste gedeelte met cockpit is te lang, te dun, misschien komt het ook wel door de lange smalle neus.
Een uitelkaar gerekte YF-23 ? en YF-23 was al 20,6 m1
F-22 is 18,9 m1, deze fighter 23 m1 ???
Kan me niet voorstellen dat dit hem wordt in 2030.
Ik kan mij niet voorstellen dat het uberhaupt nog wat met Lockheed wordt op Fighter gebied, als men in de US het lef heeft de onderste steen boven te krijgen bij het F35 programma.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 09/01/2012 | 18:25 uur
Ik kan mij niet voorstellen dat het uberhaupt nog wat met Lockheed wordt op Fighter gebied, als men in de US het lef heeft de onderste steen boven te krijgen bij het F35 programma.
Lockheed za wel met zijn 6e generatie moeten komen om in de pas te lopen met Boeing en als ik kijk naar het ontwikkeltraject van een nieuwe kist van idee tot operationeel inzetbaar, dan zijn we zo 20 jaar verder.
Daarnaast zullen de Amerikanen ook tot de conclusie komen dat < 200 F22 in het toekomstige air dominance theater ook de doorslag niet zullen geven en dat de F35 (alle varianten) en de F18E in een A2A confrontatie met SU35 en PAK-FA het onderspit zullen delven. Na 2030 zullen F15's en F16's ook geen zoden meer aan de dijk zetten.
F-35 Under Fire In Italy
Jan 9, 2012
By Andy Nativi
ROME — The Italian government is ushering in a new round of defense cuts in which, for the first time, the fate of Rome's participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will be seriously threatened.
The newly launched defense review not only has sweeping implications for Italy's defense ambitions but also rings in a further belt-tightening in Europe among countries that are just beginning to come to grips with the scale of their budget and debt problems.
In Italy, much of the work on the military review remains to be completed. Nevertheless, a sharp reduction in the number of F-35s Italy will buy is virtually certain, military officials say. At least a third of the 131 fighters slated for procurement will likely fall under the budget ax, with some minority parties arguing for an outright program termination.
Rome is one of the largest international buyers of the F-35 — after the U.K. drastically cut its procurement objective in its 2010 spending review. Italy plans to spend €13 billion ($16.7 billion) to buy and sustain both the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing and the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing versions, though it has not ordered any aircraft yet.
Other major procurement projects are also under scrutiny, but the F-35 has received the lion's share of attention because of the size of the planned outlays.
Although Italy assessed its spending needs in 2010 in light of an era of fiscal austerity, the change late last year to a technocratic government, led by Mario Monti, specifically put in place to handle the country's financial problems more aggressively, has put military spending back in the crosshairs. The government, although not elected, enjoys broad support in the parliament to carry out sweeping reforms.
Also potentially affecting the JSF debate is the fact that the government is very much focused on budget considerations rather than foreign policy ambitions. Cancelling the 22 navy F-35Bs would leave the service without fighters to put on its aircraft carrier after the AV-8B Harriers are retired. While that would crimp the ability to project forces, those considerations may not hold much sway with the Monti government. Such a move would likely cause the Italian air force also to drop plans to buy 40 F-35Bs and focus instead entirely on the F-35A.
On the other hand, working in the JSF's favor is that even at reduced numbers, the F-35 procurement would allow Italy to capitalize on the €2.5 billion it spent or pledged to the development and construction of a JSF final assembly and check out (FACO) facility at Cameri air force base. Work on the FACO is progressing quickly to be ready by 2014 to meet original JSF production schedules.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2012/01/09/08.xml&headline=F-35%20Under%20Fire%20In%20Italy
Govt to soon close deal for fighter jets
The two remaining contenders in the deal are likely to be called by the defence ministry on Thursday
New Delhi: The Eurofighter Typhoon may have emerged as the lowest bidder (L1) in the multi-billion dollar deal to procure 126 fighter jets for the Indian Air Force (IAF), according to people familiar with the matter.
Mint could not independently verify this.
The two remaining contenders in the deal are likely to be called by the defence ministry on Thursday, these people said on condition of anonymity.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is promoted by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., or EADS. The other contender vying for the L1 slot is the Rafale, promoted by Dassault SA.
Sitanshu Kar, the defence ministry's spokesperson, declined to comment.
Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin's F-16IN Super Viper, both from the US and initially seen to be among the frontrunners, Russia's Mikoyan MiG-35 and Sweden's Saab JAS 39 Gripen were the other contenders.
The defence ministry short-listed the Eurofighter and the Rafale after extensive field trials. The shortlist was announced on 29 April. The deal is potentially worth $10 billion, which would make it the single largest defence deal India has ever struck.
http://www.livemint.com/2012/01/09225047/Govt-to-soon-close-deal-for-fi.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/01/2012 | 06:26 uur
F-35 Under Fire In Italy
Rome is one of the largest international buyers of the F-35 — after the U.K. drastically cut its procurement objective in its 2010 spending review. Italy plans to spend €13 billion ($16.7 billion) to buy and sustain both the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing and the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing versions, though it has not ordered any aircraft yet.
Budget van Italie = 13 miljard euro voor 131 toestellen van versie A en B (waarbij de B-versie duurder is dan de A en ook C)
Dat betekend dat de gemiddelde prijs voor "to buy and sustain" (aankoop en onderhoud) = € 99.236.641,00 per toestel
Deze 99 miljoen euro per toestel is te weinig, als ze dit budget houden en ook JSF's kopen (dus geen bezuiniging op het budget), kunnen ze nooit 131 toestellen kopen.
Het aantal zal dan eerder tussen de 85 a 90 toestellen zijn voor 13 miljard euro. Tevens zal er bezuinigd worden op het budget (1/3), dus hou je 60 toestellen over in zowel A als B
Het valt mij op dat de "oude" partners (Nederland, Canada, Italy) van het eerste uur hun budgetten te laag hebben om de beoogde aantallen te kunnen kopen. Dit zal mede komen doordat de prijs van de JSF ernorm zijn gestegen, maar de budgetten niet. En vertragingen leiden vaak ook naar prijsstijgingen.
Ook heeft Italie de B-versie eigenlijk nodig om van hun vliegdekschepen te kunnen vliegen, misschien bestellen ze wel alleen de B-versie (als deze in productie komt) Dus 24 F-35B voor de Marina Militare en de luchtmacht van Italy heeft dan de 96 stuks Eurofighters.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 09/01/2012 | 18:49 uur
Lockheed za wel met zijn 6e generatie moeten komen om in de pas te lopen met Boeing en als ik kijk naar het ontwikkeltraject van een nieuwe kist van idee tot operationeel inzetbaar, dan zijn we zo 20 jaar verder.
Lockheed moet op dit moment alles op alles zetten om nog iets te maken van die F35. Welke kundige engineers heeft Lockheed nog over om nu een 6th generation vliegtuig te ontwikkelen?! En dan wordt dat uiteindelijk ook weer een haastklus met enorme risico's
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/01/2012 | 06:26 uur
F-35 Under Fire In Italy
De Italianen, Britten en Zweden kunnen beter snel werk maken van die Sea Gripen. SAAB, BAe en Finnmechanica, eventueel met hulp van EADS.
Citaat van: dudge op 10/01/2012 | 10:02 uur
Om wille van continuïteit van de Europese fighterindustrie zou het een goede zaak zijn als Desault met de Rafale een (aantal) order(s) op korte termijn weet te realiseren.
En daarna snel de koppen bij elkaar om te komen tot één of twee nieuwe Europese concepten voor na 2030/35. [/quote]
Natuurlijk is het goed als we zo'n order krijgen. En op bemand gebied is het stil in Europa, maar aan de 'x'de generatie UCAV's wordt hard gewerkt, dus laten we niet zeggen dat het op dit continent volledig stil staat.
[/quote]
Om wille van de kwaliteit van de EU defensie industrie is het belangrijk dat Einzelganger Dassault eens gaat samenwerken, of ophoud te bestaan. Kan in mijn ogen alleen als er buiten Frankrijk geen Rafale verkocht wordt. Dan moeten ze er wel werk van gaan maken om te overleven.
Citaat van: dudge op 10/01/2012 | 11:08 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 10/01/2012 | 10:42 uur
Om wille van de kwaliteit van de EU defensie industrie is het belangrijk dat Einzelganger Dassault eens gaat samenwerken, of ophoud te bestaan. Kan in mijn ogen alleen als er buiten Frankrijk geen Rafale verkocht wordt. Dan moeten ze er wel werk van gaan maken om te overleven.
Zoals Dassault nu al doet met BAE (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e7027f3e-9a95-11e0-bab2-00144feab49a.html)? Of Uberhaupt de nEUROn, welke ook diverse (europese) partners kent?
De EU is op fighter gebied hopeloos verdeeld. En het ergste is dat een aantal EU landen liever op de US steunen, dan dat zij elkaar intern helpen op dit gebied. Kijk naar de F35B en de Sea Gripen.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 10/01/2012 | 11:28 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 10/01/2012 | 11:08 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 10/01/2012 | 10:42 uur
Om wille van de kwaliteit van de EU defensie industrie is het belangrijk dat Einzelganger Dassault eens gaat samenwerken, of ophoud te bestaan. Kan in mijn ogen alleen als er buiten Frankrijk geen Rafale verkocht wordt. Dan moeten ze er wel werk van gaan maken om te overleven.
Zoals Dassault nu al doet met BAE (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e7027f3e-9a95-11e0-bab2-00144feab49a.html)? Of Uberhaupt de nEUROn, welke ook diverse (europese) partners kent?
De EU is op fighter gebied hopeloos verdeeld. En het ergste is dat een aantal EU landen liever op de US steunen, dan dat zij elkaar intern helpen op dit gebied. Kijk naar de F35B en de Sea Gripen.
Dat is helaas correct.
Het punt is: nu zijn de Europeanen redelijk succesvol, bij een beperkt/gebrek (aan) Amerikaans alternatief. Bij de volgende generatie wisseling zo rond 2030-2040 dreigen we de boot volledig mis te lopen en zijn we, naast de diverse U(C)AV systemen, volledig afhankelijk van de markt buiten Europa.
Ik verwacht geen nieuw zelfstandig avontuur meer van Saab, Desault wordt ook lastig (de Rafale heeft inmiddels 50 mjd euro gekost) dus de beste kansen liggen in het gezamelijk ontwikkelen van een lichte en een middelzware kist die rond 2035-2040 klaar voor operationeel gebruik is.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/01/2012 | 11:39 uur
De EU is op fighter gebied hopeloos verdeeld. En het ergste is dat een aantal EU landen liever op de US steunen, dan dat zij elkaar intern helpen op dit gebied. Kijk naar de F35B en de Sea Gripen.
De EU is Defensie-breed hopeloos verdeeld. En ik ga zeer zeker akkoord met je 'aantal EU landen liever op de US steunen'.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 10/01/2012 | 11:28 uur
Dat is helaas correct.
Het punt is: nu zijn de Europeanen redelijk succesvol, bij een beperkt/gebrek (aan) Amerikaans alternatief. Bij de volgende generatie wisseling zo rond 2030-2040 dreigen we de boot volledig mis te lopen en zijn we, naast de diverse U(C)AV systemen, volledig afhankelijk van de markt buiten Europa.
Ik verwacht geen nieuw zelfstandig avontuur meer van Saab, Dassault wordt ook lastig (de Rafale heeft inmiddels 50 mjd euro gekost) dus de beste kansen liggen in het gezamelijk ontwikkelen van een lichte en een middelzware kist die rond 2035-2040 klaar voor operationeel gebruik is.
Indien de Rafale geen afnemers vindt, is het gedaan met Dassault's productie van fighters, volgens mij. Het bedrijf zal geen geld meer (kunnen) pompen in iets dat zoveel geld verslindt aan R&D indien er geen afnemers zijn behalve de Franse Defensie.
Maar ook de Franse regering bespaart op Defensie en zal m.i. geen massa's besteden aan een enkel defensieproject. Er zijn ook andere grote en dure projecten die Frankrijk blijkbaar niet wil/kan met anderen (op)starten, dus moeten er keuzes gemaakt/eisen en verwachtingen bijgesteld worden.
In '70 en '80 waren er al verschillende bi- , tri- en multinationale projecten die met goede intenties begonnen maar dan om politiek-economische eigenbelangen uiteenvielen.
De afzetmarkt voor dure items als bv subs, fregatten, MBT's, fighters enz. is zo snel en ingrijpend aan het slinken dat die markt zich zelf in de toekomst zal aanpassen. Dit betekent dat hele bedrijven gewoonweg zullen verdwijnen (o.a. door gebrek aan overheidssteun die niet kan blijven aanhouden) of dat deze gedwongen zullen zijn om te fusioneren met andere.
Ander, mogelijk gevolg, is dat men een 'back to basics' beweging maakt en producten ontwerpt en bouwt die niet zo hoogtechnologisch zijn, maar daardoor wel in grotere getallen geproduceerd kunnen worden. En dat verhoogt meteen ook de exportkansen.
Ik zie daarom best wel een toekomst weggelegd voor de Gripen, maar hoe langer we (moeten) wachten op de eerstvolgende afnemer, hoe kleiner de kans dat die er daadwerkelijk komt. En dan wordt die self fullfilling prophecy van 'Exit Gripen' werkelijkheid. En is eenzelfde Exit ook voor de Rafale van toepassing...
Cost of new fighters still up in the air: Defence
BY DAVID ELLERY, DEFENCE REPORTER
11 Jan, 2012 04:00 AM
Only time will tell if US Defence budget cuts totalling almost $500billion are going to drive up the cost of Australia's Joint Strike Fighters, Defence says.
''Suggestions of changes to the Joint Strike Fighter Program in terms of budget, aircraft numbers and schedule remain speculative ahead of the draft 2013 US Department of Defence budget in around mid-February,'' a spokesman said.
''Planning is proceeding within Defence for the procurement of up to 100 aircraft. [Defence] will bring forward a proposal for consideration by the Government in late 2012 which details the risks and costs associated with the JSF and other fall-back options.''
The US Government is expected to postpone some of its JSF orders until economic conditions improve.
That could speed up the delivery of Australian aircraft - the first two of which are due to be completed in 2014 - by opening up spots on the production line.
Sources say the only cause for concern for Australia is if a wind-back in US Air Force JSF acquisitions delays the conventional variant's initial operating capability date.
Australia plans to have its first JSFs combat-ready by 2018 when the ''classic'' Hornets, which date back to the 1980s, are due to retire.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has repeatedly said the fallback option, in the event of a possible capability gap, is to buy more Super Hornets. Some in Defence are not so sure, saying while the first tranche of 24 Super Hornets replaced F-111s that had become prohibitively expensive to keep in the air, a second Super Hornet buy would likely take the place of some of the 100 JSFs specified in the 2009 white paper.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies does not believe more Super Hornets are the only answer. In a recent paper, ''What's Plan B?'', he wrote, ''If an additional gap of a year or two was to transpire [a second] 'classic' Hornet life extension is probably the least bad option''.
Mr Davies said it was highly likely the US would defer some of its JSF orders as a result of President Barack Obama's budget cuts. US analysts have said the Joint Strike Fighter program is a winner under the defence restructure announced by Mr Obama last week.
Loren Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, said, ''A pivot to the Pacific seems like good news for makers of warships and aircraft and bad news for makers of armoured vehicles and helicopters.''
The most likely outcome for the JSF was ''a slower production ramp, but a secure future''.
With Turkey ordering its first two JSF's earlier this week, Japan recently committing to more than 40 aircraft and an expectation South Korea could soon follow, there is a good chance many deferred US orders would be soaked up.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/cost-of-new-fighters-still-up-in-the-air-defence/2416029.aspx?storypage=0
THALES : French defence ministry awards innovative availability contract
10 January 2012 - The French defence ministry's integrated structure for through-life support of aeronautical equipment (SIMMAD) has awarded Thales the contract to support its equipment on board the Rafale aircraft in service with the French Air Force and French Navy. The ten-year contract, known as MAESTRO, is a renewal of the current through-life support contract and broadens the scope of responsibility to ensure that Thales works more closely with operational personnel to guarantee fleet availability.
Under the terms of the contract, Thales is responsible for supporting the Rafale's phased array radar, electronic warfare system, avionics (displays, onboard computers, etc.), optronics (OSF front-sector optronics, cameras, etc.) and communication systems.
To guarantee fleet availability, Thales will optimise replacement parts management, logistics management and information flows between government agencies and Thales services, streamline equipment repair processes and deploy technical and logistics advisers to work directly with users on French military bases.
The fixed-price availability contract represents a major innovation in through-life support delivery and coincides with an increase in Rafale flight hours and the need to comply with tougher military airworthiness standards.
Merry Michaux, Vice-President, Military Aerospace Customer Support and Services Managing Director at Thales said: "Thales is particularly proud to have been awarded this new contract, which we see as a sign of renewed confidence in a trusted partner and an endorsement of our continuing commitment to drive efficiency gains in aeronautical equipment support. The innovative concepts and collaborative working methods that we are putting in place on military bases and shared platforms will make a significant contribution to optimising availability of the Rafale fleet and bringing down the aircraft's cost per flying hour."
The Smart Care concept implemented in the MAESTRO programme is the basis of a modular approach to availability contracting that Thales also proposes for other equipment types and other aircraft.
* MAESTRO : MAintien en condition opérationnelle des Equipements B et des moyens de Soutien Thales du Rafale Optimisé (Optimised through-life support for Thales Class B equipment and support systems for Rafale)
About Thales
Thales is a global technology leader for the Defence, Security, Aerospace and Transportation markets. In 2010, the company generated revenues of €13.1 billion with 68,000 employees in 50 countries. With its 22,500 engineers and researchers, Thales has a unique capability to design, develop and deploy equipment, systems and services that meet the most complex security requirements. Thales has an exceptional international footprint, with operations around the world working with customers as local partners. www.thalesgroup.com
http://www.4-traders.com/THALES-4715/news/THALES-French-defence-ministry-awards-innovative-availability-contract-13964763/
1st two F-35Bs delivered to Marine Corps
By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jan 11, 2012 18:38:11 EST
The Marines Corps' first two production F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) arrived at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Fla., plane-maker Lockheed Martin announced Wednesday.
The two short take-off vertical landing fighters were flown in separately by Marine aviators Maj. Joseph Bachmann and Lt. Col. Matt Taylor. The pilots flew aircraft BF-6 and BF-8 respectively.
Under an unorthodox arrangement, while the jets belong to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's VMFAT-501 squadron, the unit resides with the U.S. Air Force's 33rd Fighter Wing alongside the Navy's VFA-101 and the Air Force's 58th Fighter Squadron.
The Marines could start training new students to fly the F-35B in August, a senior Defense Department official had said earlier. However, currently the Pentagon has not yet formally set a date for training to start at the Florida base.
The DoD has opted to use an approach based on reducing risks prior to starting training operations at Eglin, the official said. As such the Pentagon has not set a specific date to issue a military flight release. Instead, the start of training will be "event driven."
"[The U.S. Air Force and Department of the Navy] are waiting for aircraft flight clearance for test pilot maturation flights," the senior DoD official said. Further, "both services are still trying to determine how many maturation hours are needed by test pilots before instructor pilots and then students can be trained."
But if everything goes as currently planned, the Marine Corps students will probably start flying their version of the Lightning II around August 2012.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/01/defense-marine-f-35b-stovl-arrive-at-eglin-011112/
F-35 in 2-zitter uitvoering ?
Herintroductie van RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) als "back-seat" electronic warfare officers voor UAV's
Chief skunk on 6th-gen fighters, 2-seat F-35s & classified UAVs
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- It was a presentation this morning by Alton "Al" Romig, the new chief of the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, on unmanned air vehicle technology, so you know he had to say something about the RQ-170 Sentinel. Anticipation only grew as he began his lecture to the 50th annual Sciences Meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) with this sentence:
"I want to tickle your curiousity with the art of the possible," Romig said. (ED: Go onnnn ...)
Alas, even among his peers, Romig stuck to the unclassified, non-proprietary script on the RQ-170, which was referenced in text-form only on his second slide. Yes, the RQ-170 exists, he conceded. "And before you can ask me, that's all I can say about that," he said.
(ED: Right. Moving along then.)
On the subject of UAVs, Romig allowed that Skunk Works has much more than the RQ-170 in its classified product stable. "There's a whole large collection of classified programmes (within Lockheed) in the area of small UAVs," Romig said.
A major effort at Skunk Works is now underway to make UAVs more autonomous. Internal demonstrations have proven that a single operator can control more than two UAVs simultaneously. "How large that number can get is unclear," he said.
Intriguingly, Romig said that if the US Air Force returns to the days of "back-seat" electronic warfare officers, the F-35 could control a swarm of four "buddy" UAVs. He didn't directly say that Lockheed is considering two-seat F-35s, but the possibility tanatalises. (Two years ago, we reported that Israeli industry officials already anticipated the emergence of a two-seat F-35 eventually.)
In the short clip below, Romig answers an audience member's question about the the possibility of a sixth generation fighter.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/chief-skunk-on-6th-gen-fighter.html
Israel sets sights on two-seater F-35
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-sets-sights-on-two-seater-f-35-337464/
Korea drops key stealth requirements
By Lee Tae-hoon
Seoul has decided to remove two key compulsory requirements initially set for 60 advanced fighter jets that it plans to purchase in an attempt to allow more companies to enter the competition for the nation's largest-ever arms deal.
"Korea cannot defend the national interest without competition," said Noh Dae-lae, the commissioner of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in a meeting with defense reporters Thursday.
He stressed that the military will ease the required operational capabilities (ROC) of the FX-III project to secure a bigger "buying power" and a greater leverage in negotiations by promoting competition.
Kim Dae-sik, the head of DAPA's contract management agency, confirmed that Seoul will release a request for proposal (RFP) for the purchase of 60 high-end foreign jets without the early prerequisite of a conformal weapons bay.
The conformal weapons bay, which allows aircraft to carry weapons internally, is a common characteristic of the fifth generation stealth aircraft. It greatly reduces the radar cross section (RCS) of the plane, making it appear much smaller than it is on enemy radar, often to a size of a bird.
"DAPA plans to issue the RFP by the end of the month without the requirement of the conformal weapons bay," Kim said.
Of three aircraft manufacturers that publicly expressed intent to enter the FX-III bid, only the Eurofighter Typhoon built by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) lacks the internal weapons bay.
Lockheed Martin has successfully completed the development of a conformal bay for the F-35 Lightning II that it wants to sell to Korea, whereas Boeing is developing one for its F-15 Silent Eagle, a proposed upgrade of the F-15.
Oh Tae-shik, head of DAPA's program management agency, confirmed that any major players in the market will be able to enter the FX-race without having to fulfill a specific RCS value previously set by the Air Force.
Lockheed Martin's F-35 is the only aircraft that met the military's RCS requirement.
"Non-stealth fighters will be able to enter the bid as we will lift the two early requirements," he said. "However, DAPA will evaluate stealth capability as one of the key aspects, giving an advantage to an aircraft with a lower observability."
Korea has set aside 8.3 trillion won ($7.3 billion) for the acquisition of 60 fighters to replace the Air Force's F-4 and F-5 aircraft, 1.9 trillion won for 36 attack helicopters and 485 billion won for four high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles.
A source said the Air Force has launched a 50-member task force to help guarantee thorough testing, evaluation and negotiations for the three major foreign acquisition projects.
Seoul plans to receive proposals from possible bidders for the FX-III project and the helicopter project until June next year and announce the winners in September or October this year.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/116_102739.html
Britain's Cameron to visit to Saudi Arabia
RIYADH | Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:38am EST
Jan 12 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister David Cameron will visit Saudi Arabia on Friday for meetings with King Abdullah and Crown Prince Nayef, his first trip to the world's top oil exporter since taking office in 2010, the state news agency SPA said on Thursday.
Cameron's visit, which is expected to focus on improving the relationship between Britain and the conservative Islamic kingdom, also comes amid heightened tensions in the Gulf where Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz.
Most Gulf oil, including that produced by Saudi Arabia, is shipped through the strait. London has imposed tough sanctions on the Islamic republic over its nuclear programme. Iran says its atomic programme is intended for civilian purposes.
Saudi Arabia, a major British defence market, agreed to buy Typhoon Eurofighter aircraft from BAE Systems in 2006 in a deal that left open the possibility of expanding the order.
British defence contractor BAE said last week that talks with Saudi Arabia over changes to its order for 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets would continue into 2012 and possibly impact its 2011 earnings.
Two Western defence sources said Saudi Arabia, which last month placed a $29.4 billion for new Boeing F-15 jets, was in the early stage of talks to increase its Typhoon order by as many as 48 aircraft. Eurofighter declined to comment.
SPA did not say whether Cameron would also meet the new Saudi Defence Minister, Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who moved into the job in November after the death of Crown Prince Sultan, who had held the post for five decades.
Although Friday's meeting will be the first between the two leaders since Cameron became prime minister, he did meet King Abdullah when he was leader of the opposition.
The Foreign Secretary William Hague, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, and his predecessor Liam Fox, have all visited the kingdom.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/saudi-britain-idUSL6E8CC43W20120112
US Air Force: The Quest for a Sixth Generation Fighter
Published: January 10, 2012Posted in: Aviation, Featured, Military, Technology
http://www.capfalcon.net/2012/01/10/us-air-force-the-quest-for-a-sixth-generation-fighter/
Citaat van: dudge op 12/01/2012 | 17:49 uur
Het zou goed nieuws zijn als het lukt om 48 extra EF aan saudi's te verkopen. Geeft ook wel wat aan over de capaciteiten van het toestel.
Zou zeker een opsteker zijn, het zou het aantal EF's op 120 brengen (met daarnaast 150+ F15's)
Vervelend hoor als jouw land defensie wel serieus neemt!
En nu maar wachten op de Indiaase beslissing (volgens geruchten zou die vandaag, 12/1/12, worden genomen, alleen dat lijkt vooralsnog een gerucht te zijn, er is nog helemaal niets over te vinden)
Citaat van: dudge op 12/01/2012 | 19:09 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/01/2012 | 18:26 uur
Zou zeker een opsteker zijn, het zou het aantal EF's op 120 brengen
Vraag is natuurlijk nog of het nieuwe toestellen zullen zijn, of overschotten, maar inderdaad een opsteker.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/01/2012 | 18:26 uur
(met daarnaast 150+ F15's)
Wat ik zo snel kan vinden, over de 200 zelfs. En ook nog een stuk of 75 Tornado's welke geupgrade worden.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/01/2012 | 18:26 uur
Vervelend hoor als jouw land defensie wel serieus neemt!
De krijgsmacht blijft een middel tot een doel, niet een doel op zich, en met meer dan 11%gdp (http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4) zou dat voor Nederland uit komen op zo'n €60 miljard wellicht zou ik dat als krijgsmachtbepleiter alsnog vervelend vinden.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/01/2012 | 18:26 uur
En nu maar wachten op de Indiaase beslissing (volgens geruchten zou die vandaag, 12/1/12, worden genomen, alleen dat lijkt vooralsnog een gerucht te zijn, er is nog helemaal niets over te vinden)
Al teveel geruchten over gehoord. Ik wacht lekker af tot er concrete informatie is, al kriebelt het wel een beetje. Ben erg benieuwd wat daar uit gaat komen.
Ik ga er vanuit dat ze gaan voor de EF tranche 3 en dat de reeds geleverde toestellen op die standaard gebracht zullen worden.
De Saudi luchtmacht beschikt momenteel over 70 F15's en daar komen nu 84 bij (154).
Ik ben het met je eens dat het hebben van een krijgsmacht niet een opzich staand doel moet zijn maar een middel moet zijn om de landsbelangen nationaal en internationaal te dienen waarbij een budget van 2% van het BNP geen te hoge investering is.
Eurofighter Typhoon Wins Massive MMRCA Contract from India
01/13/2012
Meinhaj Hussain, m.hussain@grandestrategy.com
Bismillah-arrahman-arraheem. GrandeStrategy sources suggest that the Eurofighter Typhoon may in fact be the winner of the long delayed Indian Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition. The MMRCA is India's largest single defense deal that seeks to purchase high-end combat aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The contract is estimated to be worth between 10-15 Billion USD for 126 or more combat aircraft. These aircraft will provide India with a credible boost in air combat capabilities significantly downgrading any advantage the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) may have clawed back over the last decade.
The contest has been essentially between the Eurofighter Typhoon built by a pan-European consortium which includes EADS, Alenia Aeronautica and BAE Systems, and the Rafale, its French equivalent built by Dassault. It is commonly believed that the Rafale has better air-to-ground, while the Typhoon enjoys superior air-to-air performance although both planes are closely matched. The competition was critical for Rafale because it has yet to secure an export order in the last 10 years. The loss of this competition to the Eurofighter consortium may possibly be fatal to the Rafale securing any major future international contracts.
The purchase will have a few significant ramifications to Pakistan, the premier air force of the Muslim world. Pakistan's JF-17 fighter is a capable multi-role aircraft but is not optimized for the kind of high-high (high altitude and high speed) BVR (Beyond Visual Range) combat that the future of air combat is increasingly leading towards and the kind of combat the Eurofighter Typhoon is purpose-built to perform. As a result this can provide a capability gap for PAF planners. This is likely to emphasize on more J-10s from China, an aircraft with superior air combat capabilities than the JF-17.
The Typhoon will also bring in the best platform for employing the MBDA Meteor, a new generation of BVR AAMs that can give an advantage to the IAF against both the PAF and the PLAAF (People's Liberation Army Air Force, or the Chinese air force). When combined with the high-high profile of the Typhoon, this can put lower kinetic energy fighters like the JF-17 at a disadvantage. The view of this author is to develop UCAVs customized for the Pakistani scenario and couple these with two-seater JF-17 Block II/III.
Another possible implication is that France may now be willing to trade weapons with Pakistan and some of the Rafale's technology may find itself to the JF-17. This is an unlikely possibility given the belligerence of Western powers presently towards Pakistan but the issue is not closed as France is known to have done such business in the past. The interest in such trade has multiple and important implications. Most importantly, France may be willing to sell weapons and avionics for an export oriented JF-17 where the customer is not Pakistan but a third country more amenable to the French. Countries like Egypt or Argentina for instance, may prefer a cheaper plane than the Rafale but want Western avionics and weapons. Pakistan may herself be interested in such parts as the excellent MMI (Man-Machine Interface), E/O (Electro/Optical) systems and EW (Electronic Warfare) systems, all of which are top grade subsystems of the Rafale.
A word of comfort is that the machines are highly expensive to buy and maintain and perhaps a degree more sophisticated than Indian engineers are used to handling. Coupled with a longer delivery timeline, Pakistan or China are unlikely to see these birds operational in significant number until at least 2016. Nevertheless, we have to hand it to the Indians that they have in all probability made the right choice.
http://www.grandestrategy.com/2012/01/3939184819-eurofighter-typhoon-wins.html
Analysis: Japan's F-35 choice a case of capability over industry
By Reuben F Johnson
1/13/2012
Japan's decision to select the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for its F-X fighter replacement requirement was based on different considerations to those currently in play in other major fighter competitions.
The two largest still in play – Brazil's F-X2 and India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) – have been running for years with the main criteria being the level of technology transfer, industrial participation for local firms and commercial offsets.
Brazil's emphasis on the transfer of technology goes further than most other competitions with the requirement that "benefits from the programme have an impact across the entire economy, not just in the defence sphere," according to a Brazilian diplomat familiar with the tender.
By contrast, Japan's decision-making process was more about actual combat performance and interoperability with the US and other neighbouring allied states than about industrial benefits. Cost – both flyaway and life-cycle – was also less of a factor for Tokyo.
Operationally Japan's long-term considerations were that the US, South Korea, Singapore and Australia would all be flying F-35s in the future and the Japan Air Self-Defence Force wants to be fully interoperable with such nations.
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065932120&channel=defence
Joint Strike Fighter Test Report Shows Heightened Problems with F-35B and Risks of Excessive Concurrency
By NICK SCHWELLENBACH
POGO has obtained the Pentagon's latest annual operational test and evaluation report on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which was not publicly unavailable until now. Bloomberg News's Tony Capaccio first reported on the report last night.
In the first sentence of the report, the Pentagon's top tester states that "the high level of concurrency of production, development, and test created several challenges for the program and the Services." A high level of concurrency means large numbers of aircraft are being bought before the aircraft's design is mature and well-tested. If serious or significant enough problems are found during testing and development , large numbers of planes may have to undergo expensive retrofits, and adding significant expense to the program. The JSF Concurrency Quick Look Review, which POGO made available last month, recommended a reduction in concurrency.
The test report is authored by the Defense Department's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). The DOT&E is Dr. J. Michael Gilmore.
The report details some significant progress in the testing program over last year; however, there is a long way to go in the testing program, with 11,612 test points cumulatively met so far out of an estimated 48,044 remaining. Much of the most difficult testing remains, during which there is a high likelihood deficiencies that will have to remedied—that can increase cost and schedule delays—will be found. For an example of a deficiency identified in testing so far that has to be correctedthe test report notes in its executive summary that:
...live fire tests and analyses showed the fuel tank inerting system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is likely to be hit. The program is redesigning the system. Upon completion, the redesigned system will be evaluated to determine if it provides the required protection.
The JSF section of this year's DOT&E report is about twice as long as last year's—13 pages to last year's 6—which was already longer than most if not all the other individual sections in the annual report. The length is due in part to the three different variants of the JSF: the Air Force's F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) version; the Marine Corps' F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) model; and the Navy's F-35C carrier variant (CV). The F-35B probably has the most problems so far, although the F-35C is at an earlier stage in testing.
One of the main reasons the F-35B has particular difficulties because it has extremely tight weight margins. As of November 2011, according to the report, there are only "230 pounds of margin between the current weight and the intended not-to-exceed weight of 32, 577 pounds." However, it was recently determined that the not-to-exceed weight can be expanded by 142 pounds. "Managing weight growth with such tight margins for the balance of SDD [System Development and Demonstration] will be a significant challenge," according to the report.
The program is considering "structural modifications to improve handling characteristics" of the F-35B since they do not meet "current criteria." The other option being looked at is "relaxation of the handling characteristics criteria."
In contrast, the F-35A had "acceptable handling characteristics at high and medium altitudes," however the "magnitude and effects of buffet during elevated g-load and angle-of-attack" will "need to be further examined." There are plans for more intense flight envelope testing in 2012.
The deficiencies in handling characteristics are a big deal. The JSF is "not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements," according to the report, which elaborates that:
The primary operational deficiencies include poor performance in human systems integration (e.g. helmet-mounted display, night vision capability), and aircraft handling characteristics, as well as shortfalls in maneuvering performance (e.g. F-35A combat radius, which is a KPP [Key Performance Parameter], and F-35C acceleration.
The report is very detailed. Here are some of the other things in it that grabbed my attention:
A large, nearly one-page table details F-35B specific door and propulsion problems with several components of the F-35B requiring redesign.
Even though they were within stress tolerances, cracks were discovered in F-35B landing gear doors.
The vertical tail fin of the F-35 may also need to be modified:
The F-35A flight sciences tested [and] evaluated handling characteristics and performance in a larger, more stressful flight envelope than the other two variants ... However, structural loads on the vertical tail fin of the F-35A aircraft...are higher than predicted and may require modifications to the tail or further changes to the flight control software to reduce these effects.
Testers also "found that fuel migrated back into the aircraft" in both the F-35A and F-35B variants. "This has the potential to create an unsafe condition."
The horizontal tail "sustained heat damage at the inboard trailing edge area" in an F-35A after its afterburner was used for a long time on a flight test mission. "The damage consisted of blistering of the surface and missing pieces of the trailing edge." Similar damage was found on an F-35B.
Read the section of the DOT&E's report on the JSF here.
Nick Schwellenbach is POGO's Director of Investigations.
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/joint-strike-fighter-test-report-shows-heightened-problems-with-f-35b-and-risks-of-excessive-concurr.html
Ik deel het enthousiastme van Hillen helemaal niet als ik weer zo'n rapport lees met problemen bij de JSF
en dan komt je onderstaande tekst tegen :
The F-35A had "acceptable handling characteristics at high and medium altitudes," however the "magnitude and effects of buffet during elevated g-load and angle-of-attack" will "need to be further examined." There are plans for more intense flight envelope testing in 2012.
The deficiencies in handling characteristics are a big deal. The JSF is "not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements," according to the report, which elaborates that:
The primary operational deficiencies include poor performance in human systems integration (e.g. helmet-mounted display, night vision capability), and aircraft handling characteristics, as well as shortfalls in maneuvering performance (e.g. F-35A combat radius, which is a KPP [Key Performance Parameter], and F-35C acceleration.
acceptable handling .... acceptabel, ...net boven de ondergrens dus ... niet good of exellent.
Er worden hierboven best grote tekortkomingen beschreven, en daar wordt ik niet enthousiast van !
Swedish Stealth fighter concept FS 2020
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/118265-swedish-stealth-fighter-concept-fs-2020-a.html
http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/images-of-swedish-new-secret-stealth-fighter/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/01/2012 | 17:47 uur
Swedish Stealth fighter concept FS 2020
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/118265-swedish-stealth-fighter-concept-fs-2020-a.html
http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/images-of-swedish-new-secret-stealth-fighter/
Jurrien volgens mij hebben daar al postings van gezien en ik dacht ook een fimpje van een schaalmodel.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 13/01/2012 | 19:40 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/01/2012 | 17:47 uur
Swedish Stealth fighter concept FS 2020
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/118265-swedish-stealth-fighter-concept-fs-2020-a.html
http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/images-of-swedish-new-secret-stealth-fighter/
Jurrien volgens mij hebben daar al postings van gezien en ik dacht ook een fimpje van een schaalmodel.
Dat klopt, die heb ik zelf op het form geplaatst, bij deze info staat wat meer tekst en uitleg over het concept inclusief een beperkt aantal (beoogde) specs die het in mijn ogen een steeds meer interessante ontwikkeling maakt.
Als dit concept feitelijk gerealiseerd zou worden dan zou dit pleiten voor de Gripen al interim kist voor de Klu (eventueel de B/C variant in de lease tussen 2018 en 2030) om vervolgens de nieuwe kist in te voeren (wellicht biedt een samenwerking tussen Saab en de NL luchtvaart industrie attractieve mogelijkheden)
Nu eerst maar afwachten of dit een serieus ontwerp wordt of dat dit verhaal vanwege de NG de koelkast dan wel de prrullenbak in gaat.
Fotoshop of broeid er meer in Zweden?
twingriffon2
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&cp=12&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=twingriffon2&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1093&bih=538&wrapid=tljp132648312091800&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=uYYQT9LHMYOBOsql9aQD
Verder 0,0 aan info, maar het is een mooi plaatje.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/01/2012 | 17:47 uur
Swedish Stealth fighter concept FS 2020
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/118265-swedish-stealth-fighter-concept-fs-2020-a.html
http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/images-of-swedish-new-secret-stealth-fighter/
Wel een beetje vreemd de eerste pic op de tweede link laat een toestel met twee motoren zien en de dwarsdoorsnede pic daaronder en de eerste link laten een single-engine toestel zien.
Citaat van: Mourning op 13/01/2012 | 23:35 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/01/2012 | 17:47 uur
Swedish Stealth fighter concept FS 2020
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/118265-swedish-stealth-fighter-concept-fs-2020-a.html
http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/images-of-swedish-new-secret-stealth-fighter/
Wel een beetje vreemd de eerste pic op de tweede link laat een toestel met twee motoren zien en de dwarsdoorsnede pic daaronder en de eerste link laten een single-engine toestel zien.
Klopt. al was er in een Aziatische competitie sprake van een twee motorige Viking.... al het overige betreft een één motorige variant.
Het zou prima passen in het beeld van een ligte en een middelzware Europese opvolger(s) van de huidige generatie (EF, Rafale en Gripen).
Als Saab zijn kaarten goed speelt dan zijn zij de Europese winnaar vanaf 2030, simpelweg omdat de (Europese) concurrentie (blijkbaar) geen alternatief heeft.
Citaat van: Mourning op 13/01/2012 | 23:35 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/01/2012 | 17:47 uur
Swedish Stealth fighter concept FS 2020
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-forum/118265-swedish-stealth-fighter-concept-fs-2020-a.html
http://reinep.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/images-of-swedish-new-secret-stealth-fighter/
Wel een beetje vreemd de eerste pic op de tweede link laat een toestel met twee motoren zien en de dwarsdoorsnede pic daaronder en de eerste link laten een single-engine toestel zien.
De eerste pic lijkt verdacht veel op de PAK-FA
No decision yet for $11 bn India fighter jet deal
India has no timetable for the hotly awaited decision to award its $11 billion fighter jet deal, a defence ministry official said on Friday, and he denied reports that the government had contacted the constructors.
Two European contenders are left in the race to sell India 126 fighter jets, in what will be one of the world's biggest arms contracts, and help revamp the country's creaking defence equipment in line with its rising global clout.
"We don't know when the announcement is going to happen, so there is no point speculating when it will happen," the official, who did not wish to be named, told Reuters.
Still in the fray are Eurofighter, which makes the Typhoon fighter jet and is a four-nation consortium of EADS, representing Germany and Spain, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Finmeccanica.
Their competitor is France's Dassault, which makes the Rafale plane. American, Russian and Swedish bids were rejected in April last year.
Earlier this week some sections of the Indian media carried a report that the Eurofighter Typhoon may have emerged as the lowest bidder and that representatives of the contractors would have been called by the defence ministry on Thursday.
The official said that no representative of any company had been called by the government.
The government opened the bids of the two competitors in November 2011. It was expected to take about two to three weeks to pick a winner.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/no-decision-yet-for-11-bn-india-fighter-jet-deal/articleshow/11482944.cms
Royal Navy spends £50bn on new fighter jets that can't even land on aircraft carriers
By Anthony Bond
Last updated at 2:57 PM on 15th January 2012
A new fighter plane which is to be used by the UK and U.S. military has a design flaw which prevents it from landing on aircraft carriers, it has emerged.
The flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will come as a huge embarrassment to the Royal Navy which is expected to take delivery of 50 of the planes by 2020 at a cost of about £5 billion.
Leaked documents from the Pentagon have revealed that the arrestor hook of the JSF - which is used to stop the plane during landing - is too close to the wheels.
Problems: The newest version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, has a design flaw which means it cannot land on aircraft carriers
According to The Sunday Times, the Pentagon report reveals that eight simulated landings have failed and it says a 'significant redesign' of the aircraft is needed.
It says the future of the aircraft is at risk.
More...Why on earth would a pretty girl like you go and do something like that? What happened when Héloïse Goodley swapped her designer heels for Army boots
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has refused to comment on the leaked report but a spokesmen told the newspaper that defence secretary Philip Hammond has discussed the issue with the U.S government.
The spokesman insisted that Britain 'remains committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF.'
Arrestor cables are used to rapidly decelerate fighter jets as they land on aircraft carriers.
Talks: Defence secretary Philip Hammond has discussed the issue of the F-35C with his U.S counterpart Leon Panetta
The cable catches onto a hook at the back of the aircraft which stops the plane from overshooting into the sea.
But it has emerged that on the F-35C - the new carrier variant of the JSF - the arrestor hook is just 7ft from the rear wheels of the jet resulting in the arrestor missing the hook.
On aircraft currently with the U.S navy, this distance is 18ft which means it has plenty of time to catch the cable.
The leaked report - called the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review - now warns that there could be major consequences to the aircraft's structure because of the design flaw.
It goes on to warn that the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped if a redesign is to costly or results in too many technical issues.
The report also revealed a number of other areas of concern which included that it may be unable to fire British Asraam air-to-air missiles.
According to The Sunday Times, the report adds that there was a high likelihood of future failures which had not yet been identified.
The government was criticised when it scrapped the Royal Navy's Harrier aircraft in 2010.
The shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy, told the newspaper: 'An island nation like ours should be able to operate aeroplanes from an aircraft carrier. It's essential we know how long we will be without carrier strike capability.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086974/Royal-Navy-spends-50bn-new-fighter-jets-land-aircraft-carriers.html#ixzz1jXZyaojY
Decision on MMRCA deal in 10 days
PTI | 08:01 PM,Jan 15,2012
New Delhi, Jan 15 (PTI) The winner of the multi billion dollar deal to procure 126 combat planes for the Indian Air Force is expected to be announced in the next ten days. European EADS Eurofighter and Desault Rafale are in the final race for the Air Force global tender for the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA). The process to determine the L1 (lowest bidder) is under progress and is expected to be decided in another ten days, top IAF sources said here today. As per the defence procurement procedure, the lowest bidder is considered to be the winner of the contract. The two European firms were competing with American companies Lockheed Martin and Boeing, Russian MiG corporation and Swedish Saab, for the tender. But apart from Eurofighter and Desault, the rest were evicted from the tender by the Defence Ministry after field evaluation trials. On November 4 last year, Defence ministry had opened the commercial bid of the two firms left in the race and since then has been busy in determining the lowest bidder. The Eurofighter bid is backed by four partner nations including Germany, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom while the Desault Rafale is backed by the French Government. Asked about the army plans to raise aviation brigades including attack helicopters at corps level, the Air Force sources said, this would be a very costly proposition as a lot of money would be required to raise such brigades. On January 12, Army Chief General V K Singh had said that the force is planning to raise Aviation Brigade at all its thirteen corps.
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/decision-on-mmrca-deal-in-10-days/951139.html
15 Jan, 2012, 07.44PM IST, PTI
CCS to discuss Rs 1850 cr proposal for 75 trainer aircraft
NEW DELHI: The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) will consider a proposal worth over Rs 1,850 crore for procuring 75 Pilatus trainer aircraft from Switzerland in its meeting scheduled on Thursday.
The aircraft are being procured by the Indian Air Force (IAF) to provide training to IAF's rookie pilots and replace the HPT-32 trainer aircraft which have been grounded for over two years after a fatal accident during training in 2009.
The CCS will take up the proposal for procuring 75 Pilatus-7 basic trainer aircraft from Switzerland in its next meeting scheduled on Thursday, top IAF sources said here.
They said the deal was critical for IAF's training requirements as in the next two years, there will be a shortage of Kiran Mk II trainer aircraft, which are being used to impart flying lessons to the rookie cadets.
If the contract is approved by the CCS, the Swiss firm will start supplying the aircraft to India by the middle of 2013, the sources said.
Gaps in the basic flying training of IAF pilots occurred after the grounding of HPT-32 aircraft in 2009 due to a series of engine problems.
Since then the IAF has relied on Kiran Mk II aircraft for providing basic training to its young pilots. Advanced training to them is provided on the Hawk aircraft procured from the UK.
On the multi-billion dollar Multirole Combat Aircraft deal, sources said the decision about the lowest bidder, who ultimately will be the winner of the contract, was expected to be announced in next ten days.
The IAF is planning to procuring 126 aircraft for which EADS Eurofighter and French Dassault Rafale have been shortlisted by the Defence Ministry.
American Boeing and Lockheed Martin along with Russian MiG Corporation and Swedish Saab were also in the race but were rejected by India in April last year.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/ccs-to-discuss-rs-1850-cr-proposal-for-75-trainer-aircraft/articleshow/11500251.cms
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 16:21 uur
Problems: The newest version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C, has a design flaw which means it cannot land on aircraft carriers
According to The Sunday Times, the Pentagon report reveals that eight simulated landings have failed and it says a 'significant redesign' of the aircraft is needed.
It says the future of the aircraft is at risk.
-50bn-new-fighter-jets-land-aircraft-carriers.html#ixzz1jXZyaojY
Zal dit de nagel in de doodskist zijn voor de F35C?
De USN is meer dan happy met de de F18E die zal worden aangevuld met de X47B of C waardoor de noodzaak voor de F35C overbodig wordt, alleen uitermate "verrassend" voor de Britten die zich misschien genootzaakt zien tot een andere keuze.
Misschien moeten de Britten toch maar eens met Stockholm bellen..... De Sea Gripen schijnt een prijskaartje te hebben waarmee je beide nieuwe RN-carriers met gevechtsvliegtuigen kan vullen....
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 15/01/2012 | 16:51 uur
Misschien moeten de Britten toch maar eens met Stockholm bellen..... De Sea Gripen schijnt een prijskaartje te hebben waarmee je beide nieuwe RN-carriers met gevechtsvliegtuigen kan vullen....
Rob, wat weet jij dan over het prijskaartje van de Sea Gripen?
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 15/01/2012 | 16:51 uur
Misschien moeten de Britten toch maar eens met Stockholm bellen..... De Sea Gripen schijnt een prijskaartje te hebben waarmee je beide nieuwe RN-carriers met gevechtsvliegtuigen kan vullen....
Of dat (zou te gek zijn) of een switch naar de SH of Rafale.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 16:55 uur
Rob, wat weet jij dan over het prijskaartje van de Sea Gripen?
Oh, helemaal niets. Maar als de NG goedkoper is, is mijn simpele doortrekconclusie dat de Sea Gripen ook goedkoper zal zijn.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 16:59 uur
Of dat (zou te gek zijn) of een switch naar de SH of Rafale.
Ik zou nog liever met heteluchtballonen vliegen dan de Franse economie te spekken!
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 15/01/2012 | 17:04 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 16:59 uur
Of dat (zou te gek zijn) of een switch naar de SH of Rafale.
Ik zou nog liever met heteluchtballonen vliegen dan de Franse economie te spekken!
;D Ik heb het vermoeden dat de Engelsen hier ook zo over denken, dan houden we 2 alternatieven over, de Cowboy en de Viking.
Als de Britten voor de Sea Gripen zou kiezen hebben ze nog een voordeel, stel de pleuris breekt weer uit op de Falksland dan kunnen ze met HMS Ocean L12 volgens de wiki 15 harriers vervoeren, ik geloof dat de harrier ongeveer dezelfde grote heeft als de Sea Gripens, die 15 Sea Gripens kun je dan op land stationeren zodat je een extra Squadron hebt wat je kunt inzetten.
Aircraft carried:Up to 18 helicopters (typically Westland Commando and Lynx but also Merlins, Boeing Chinooks, Westland Apache), capable of carrying (but not operating) up to 15 VTOL aircraft such as RAF Harrier II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 21:24 uur
Als de Britten voor de Sea Gripen zou kiezen hebben ze nog een voordeel, stel de pleuris breekt weer uit op de Falksland dan kunnen ze met HMS Ocean L12 volgens de wiki 15 harriers vervoeren, ik geloof dat de harrier ongeveer dezelfde grote heeft als de Sea Gripens, die 15 Sea Gripens kun je dan op land stationeren zodat je een extra Squadron hebt wat je kunt inzetten.
Aircraft carried:Up to 18 helicopters (typically Westland Commando and Lynx but also Merlins, Boeing Chinooks, Westland Apache), capable of carrying (but not operating) up to 15 VTOL aircraft such as RAF Harrier II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)
Kan de SG ook "vertrekken" en landen op de Ocean?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 22:25 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 21:24 uur
Als de Britten voor de Sea Gripen zou kiezen hebben ze nog een voordeel, stel de pleuris breekt weer uit op de Falksland dan kunnen ze met HMS Ocean L12 volgens de wiki 15 harriers vervoeren, ik geloof dat de harrier ongeveer dezelfde grote heeft als de Sea Gripens, die 15 Sea Gripens kun je dan op land stationeren zodat je een extra Squadron hebt wat je kunt inzetten.
Aircraft carried:Up to 18 helicopters (typically Westland Commando and Lynx but also Merlins, Boeing Chinooks, Westland Apache), capable of carrying (but not operating) up to 15 VTOL aircraft such as RAF Harrier II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)
Kan de SG ook "vertrekken" en landen op de Ocean?
Nee want dan moet de de Ocean 25.000 ton zijn en een hoekdek hebben, de Ocean is 22.500 ton, zie wiki. Neemt niet weg dat ik de optie om 15 harriers te kunnen vervoeren interesant blijf vinden.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-to-complete-sea-gripen-design-work-in-uk-357137/
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 23:12 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 22:25 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 21:24 uur
Als de Britten voor de Sea Gripen zou kiezen hebben ze nog een voordeel, stel de pleuris breekt weer uit op de Falksland dan kunnen ze met HMS Ocean L12 volgens de wiki 15 harriers vervoeren, ik geloof dat de harrier ongeveer dezelfde grote heeft als de Sea Gripens, die 15 Sea Gripens kun je dan op land stationeren zodat je een extra Squadron hebt wat je kunt inzetten.
Aircraft carried:Up to 18 helicopters (typically Westland Commando and Lynx but also Merlins, Boeing Chinooks, Westland Apache), capable of carrying (but not operating) up to 15 VTOL aircraft such as RAF Harrier II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)
Kan de SG ook "vertrekken" en landen op de Ocean?
Nee want dan moet de de Ocean 25.000 ton zijn en een hoekdek hebben, de Ocean is 22.500 ton, zie wiki. Neemt niet weg dat ik de optie om 15 harriers te kunnen vervoeren interesant blijf vinden.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-to-complete-sea-gripen-design-work-in-uk-357137/
Op naar een 2e JSS met plat dek... en we noemen het een mini carrier.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 23:21 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 23:12 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 22:25 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 21:24 uur
Als de Britten voor de Sea Gripen zou kiezen hebben ze nog een voordeel, stel de pleuris breekt weer uit op de Falksland dan kunnen ze met HMS Ocean L12 volgens de wiki 15 harriers vervoeren, ik geloof dat de harrier ongeveer dezelfde grote heeft als de Sea Gripens, die 15 Sea Gripens kun je dan op land stationeren zodat je een extra Squadron hebt wat je kunt inzetten.
Aircraft carried:Up to 18 helicopters (typically Westland Commando and Lynx but also Merlins, Boeing Chinooks, Westland Apache), capable of carrying (but not operating) up to 15 VTOL aircraft such as RAF Harrier II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_(L12)
Kan de SG ook "vertrekken" en landen op de Ocean?
Nee want dan moet de de Ocean 25.000 ton zijn en een hoekdek hebben, de Ocean is 22.500 ton, zie wiki. Neemt niet weg dat ik de optie om 15 harriers te kunnen vervoeren interesant blijf vinden.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-to-complete-sea-gripen-design-work-in-uk-357137/
Op naar een 2e JSS met plat dek... en we noemen het een mini carrier.
In principe hoef je alleen de bovenbouw aan te passen volgens een tekening die ik in mijn archief heb.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 15/01/2012 | 23:28 uur
In principe hoef je alleen de bovenbouw aan te passen volgens een tekening die ik in mijn archief heb.
;D en dan te bedenken dat het JSS nog een stukje groter en zwaarder is.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/01/2012 | 17:10 uur
;D Ik heb het vermoeden dat de Engelsen hier ook zo over denken, dan houden we 2 alternatieven over, de Cowboy en de Viking.
Dan staat de keuze voor de SH al vast. Hoewel de F-18 niet zo'n geweldig toestel is is het voor een carrier rol wel geschikt, hij is leverbaar in een EW versie en hij is beproefd. Hij is enigszins betaalbaar, zeker voor het VK en hij je kunt er een buddy ding aan ophangen waardoor ze elkaar bij kunnen tanken.
With fighter jet costs, the sky's the limit
Documents suggest Ottawa sidestepped its own rules to buy aircraft
by Alec Castonguay on Monday, January 16, 2012 9:20am - 3 Comments
Paul Weatherman/Lockheed Martin
Night after night, Canadian CF-18 pilots took off from Trapani airbase in Italy for their targets in Libya, at least 575 km away. In an ink-black sky, in a cockpit lit by instruments reflected through their heads-up display, each pilot was aware that a single missile launched by Moammar Gadhafi's troops could kill him. "You're sitting in this contraption and all you want is to come back alive," says Maj.-Gen. Yvan Blondin, second-in-command of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who lived through similar experiences in Kosovo in the late 1990s.
To minimize the risks to pilots, Blondin wants Canada to buy the F-35 aircraft, product of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Versatile, technologically advanced and hard for enemy radar to detect, the F-35 "gives the guys that much better likelihood of coming back," says this CF-18 pilot with piercing blue eyes. In Libya, anti-aircraft defences weren't very powerful. "But who knows where Canada will need to intervene down the line?"
The first air strikes in Libya were carried out by American B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from ships in the Mediterranean. "With the F-35, we could have been active from day one attacking their radar," says Blondin. "It's the difference between playing a front-line role and a secondary one." The difference, he adds, between a used Volkswagen with a manual transmission and a brand-new Cadillac with all the options.
The RCAF is convinced that U.S. multinational company Lockheed Martin will keep its promises and that its F-35, presently in the test stage, will live up to its advance billing when it comes off its final assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, in a few years.
But that hope isn't shared by everyone in the grey corridors of National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. The F-35 program is four years behind schedule in the U.S. and its total budget there has soared 64 per cent to $382 billion. In Canada, dozens of civilian bean-counters overseeing the project, along with many senior officers of the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Navy, are asking whether the largest military purchase in Canada's history—between $15 billion and $29 billion—will force the government to cut vital spending in other areas. "We're in a period of budget restraint and we're buying a plane that isn't yet in service for a bill we can't guess at yet," a senior military officer said on condition he not be named. "The risk is huge."
In the eyes of Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister responsible for military procurement who supervised the F-35 file in Ottawa until his retirement in 2005, the purchasing process for the jet has become a public administration "fiasco." He says the government is operating in the dark, noting a person wouldn't buy a car without knowing its final price, performance or maintenance costs, let alone without even shopping around. "That's exactly what the Canadian government is doing with the F-35 fighter," he says. "It's aberrant."
The episode raises many questions, not the least of which is: did the feds get ahead of themselves when they announced, in July 2010, their intention to buy 65 F-35s with no tender? The U.K., Turkey, the Netherlands and Denmark were also considering buying the same jet. They are now delaying their final purchase decisions. Even Washington, facing a massive budget deficit, may reduce its order. Will Canada have to reconsider its own decision? And if it does, might it have to start from scratch with a competitive bidding process to replace its aging CF-18s?
An investigation by L'actualité, the sister publication to Maclean's, over several months shows that Stephen Harper's government and the RCAF did everything they could to ensure a deal to buy the JSF fighter, from rushing their analyses and sidestepping their normal decision-making process to exaggerating the industrial benefits for Canada.
The JSF program started in 1997. The U.S. was looking for a new plane to replace its aging F-16s and F-18s. To share the cost, Washington invited eight allies to participate in the design process. In return, firms in those countries could obtain contracts during the construction phase. Canada was the first to sign up in 1997, promising to pay $741 million to the U.S. government and to Lockheed Martin over 40 years. (To date it has paid $203.7 million.) Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Britain and Norway followed. There was never any obligation to actually buy the resulting jets. "It was just an industrial agreement," says Michael Slack, director of the F-35 program at National Defence. "The idea of replacing our F-18s wasn't on the radar screen yet."
In 2001, Lockheed Martin, one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the world, beat its rival Boeing to win the contract for 2,443 fighter aircraft for the U.S. Department of Defense. The Harper government says it relied on that U.S. bidding process to justify its decision not to consider any other fighter craft for Canada. "We do not need another costly bidding process," says Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino. But that way of thinking is "ridiculous," says Williams. "The Americans picked a plane according to their criteria, their budget and their missions, which aren't Canada's."
Internal Defence Department correspondence, written from 2001 to 2006 and obtained through the Access to Information Act, confirms Canada intended to launch a bidding process to replace its 79 CF-18s before 2020. But after the Conservatives came to power in 2006, the internal memos no longer make any reference to such a process.
That summer. several internal memos addressed to the chief of the Air Force and to then-defence minister Gordon O'Connor made it clear that the F-35 was the Canadian RCAF's preferred choice to replace the CF-18. That September, the defence procurement office, directed by assistant deputy minister Dan Ross (Alan Williams's replacement), recommended that O'Connor proceed with the purchase. "The JSF is the best option to fulfill Canada's needs and will stay in service for a long time, all with the lowest cost per aircraft," stated a memo signed Sept. 19, 2006.
But while officials were recommending Canada buy the F-35, a key part of the analysis that goes into all military purchases hadn't even been written yet. Known as a statement of operational requirement, such a document is like a detailed order form for what the military needs a piece of hardware to accomplish. Yet the document was not completed until June 2010, just one month before the Conservative government announced its plan to buy the F-35. "Recommending a purchase before even writing a statement of operational requirement goes against the criteria of good management," says Philippe Lagassé, a University of Ottawa professor who specializes in military procurement. "Clearly, the choice had been made long before and the statement was written to match the choice."
Nor were any of Lockheed's rivals, such as the U.S. firm Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet (the modern version of Canada's CF-18s), or Europe's Eurofighter consortium, which makes the Typhoon, ever contacted before the recommendation was made to go with the F-35 in 2006. Boeing vice-president Kory Mathews says meetings were held in 2008 and 2009, but he calls those discussions "preliminary" because Canada didn't ask for any classified information about Boeing's fighter, such as its radar and stealth capabilities. "So it's impossible to know what we really have to offer," says Mathews. "I respectfully suggest to Canada that it ask for all the information if it wants to make an informed decision." Why didn't Canada do that? "We didn't feel the need," says Col. Dave Burt, in charge of buying the new fighters for the RCAF. "We had all the necessary information, and there was too much of a technology gap between aircraft."
To critics, such statements are evidence that Canada's decision-making process around the F-35 is flawed. "It's a cosmetic analysis," says Yves Bélanger, director of the research group on the military industry and security at the Université du Québec à Montréal. He says the government should have asked tougher questions of RCAF brass as to whether the F-35 truly offered the best quality for the price. "The government obviously had a bias toward the F-35 because Canada had been part of the program since 1997," he says. "But that's no reason to let the soldiers pick their favourite piece of equipment."
Maj.-Gen. Yvan Blondin doesn't hide the fact that the wishes of the pilots, who enjoy a special status within the Canadian Forces—on missions they sleep in hotels instead of in tents—weighed heavily in the decision to recommend the Lockheed Martin jet. If some talk about the "arrogance of pilots," Blondin prefers to talk about the "pride" of a "wolf pack" within which competition is fierce. "The experts, the guys who sit in the cockpit, are the pilots," he says. "They talk to pilots from other countries. They know the F-35 will be good. The politicians listened to us and we appreciate it." Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino echoes that view. "It's natural for [the pilots] to want the best plane. We supported them," he says.
But it's also true the U.S. has a lot at stake in seeing countries buy the fighter, which has three main versions with differing capabilities. (Canada is buying the F-35A model). In December 2010, WikiLeaks released memos showing that Washington weighed in strongly when Norway, an F-35 partner like Canada, started to hesitate between the American JSF and the Swedish Gripen fighter in 2008. We must be "cautious not to over-assert our position and thereby potentially affront Norwegian sensibilities on their selection," stated one cable from the U.S. Embassy in Oslo. "A primary importance of this decision is the impact on the bilateral relationship," another declared. Once the decision was made to go ahead with the F-35, diplomats congratulated themselves. The "persistent" U.S. pressure had "paid off."
Did the Harper government face the same pressure? "No, never. We took a decision in the higher interest of the country," Fantino says. Lockheed Martin's 10 lobbyists in Ottawa had no influence, he says.
There remains a lot of uncertainty around the F-35—most importantly, the cost. Federal ministers keep saying the bill will be $75 million per plane (or $4.9 billion for 65). But that's just an estimate, Burt acknowledges. "We have no guarantee," he says. The real price will be known at the end of 2013, when Canada and the other partner countries will officially make their aircraft order.
Program delays hint at trouble though, says Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank. "Even our Air Force does not know the ultimate price. I fail to understand how Canada can rely on the figures testified to you," he wrote last January to MPs on the Commons defence committee who asked for his advice. "Real costs, when your government negotiates an actual contract and as the program goes through its life cycle, are sure to be an unpleasant surprise. I can guarantee you that the unit price Canada will pay for a complete, operational F-35A fighter will be well in excess of $70 million."
Last March, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent investigative arm of Congress, estimated that an F-35A with conventional takeoff and landing capabilities will cost $115 million. Because U.S. law forbids the export of military equipment at a price below what Washington pays, Canada must expect to pay $2.6 billion more than the figure it has been quoting.
And that bill could keep growing, says parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page. Last March he estimated the average cost of Canadian F-35s at $128 million. "The capabilities of the aircraft remain uncertain given its current state of development, the [regional and industrial benefit] remains unclear and the acquisition and long-term sustainment costs have not been determined," his report said.
And development delays have made it impossible to count on volume discounts: the first F-35s will be rolling off the assembly lines at the moment Canada makes its first purchases, in 2016. Production, once expected to peak in 2015, will now do so in 2018 or 2019, according to a Pentagon report released a year ago. That could make the unit cost of Canada's first 12 F-35s rise to $148 million, Page says. What's more, the Harper government's price estimate is based on a minimum total production of 3,100 aircraft. So if participating countries—especially the U.S., the largest buyer—cut their orders, the unit cost will rise even further. Buying fewer than 65 planes to save money is not an option. "That's the floor to fulfill our needs and maintain current capacity," Blondin says.
Maintenance costs are also a major preoccupation. The official estimate for keeping Canada's fleet of F-35s in the air is $5.7 billion over two decades. Defence sources call that number "much too low." The GAO puts the actual maintenance cost at 2.5 times the purchase cost, which would work out to $18.7 billion for Canada. Page pegs it at $19.6 billion, but over 30 years instead of 20. It's an area where the F-35's advanced technology works against it. Maintenance costs for the fighter will be 33 per cent higher than with F-16s or CF-18s. "No fighter has ever carried as many lines of computer code as the F-35," Williams says. "And its composite structure will be delicate to maintain."
There are also questions about the project's industrial benefits for Canada, too. In the House of Commons the government repeatedly argues Canadian companies can obtain up to $12 billion in manufacturing contracts for the F-35. However, this estimate, furnished by Lockheed Martin and one of its big subcontractors, Pratt & Whitney, has not been confirmed by any independent analysis.
In fact, the Pentagon contradicts it. In a 2003 report it estimated potential benefits for Canadian business at $3.9 billion. Ottawa wasn't much more optimistic, putting the potential industrial benefit at between $4.4 billion and $6.3 billion.
Up to now, 65 Canadian companies have signed contracts for a total value of $370 million with Lockheed Martin. Fantino calls the $12-billion figure "a potential. We're talking about a program that will last 30 years."
Williams is convinced Canada could have got more from a proper bidding process. "Real competition forces suppliers to bring their A game to win. A country always gets more for its money," he says. "The F-35 will fly in the end, but the real question is when and at what cost—and whether Canada needs a next-generation stealth fighter to meet its needs." The only way to know the answer to those questions is with a bidding process that is open and transparent.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/01/16/with-fighter-jet-costs-the-skys-the-limit/
Citaat van: dudge op 17/01/2012 | 09:51 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/01/2012 | 19:01 uur
With fighter jet costs, the sky's the limit
Documents suggest Ottawa sidestepped its own rules to buy aircraft
Ik wilde het stuk ontleden, maar kwam er eigenlijk niet uit, want het stuk is integraal gewoon heel herkenbaar voor de situatie in Nederland.
Je kan het bijna één op één doortrekken naar de NL situatie.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/01/2012 | 09:55 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 17/01/2012 | 09:51 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/01/2012 | 19:01 uur
With fighter jet costs, the sky's the limit
Documents suggest Ottawa sidestepped its own rules to buy aircraft
Ik wilde het stuk ontleden, maar kwam er eigenlijk niet uit, want het stuk is integraal gewoon heel herkenbaar voor de situatie in Nederland.
Je kan het bijna één op één doortrekken naar de NL situatie.
Met dat verschil dat de Canadese overheid en het ministerie van defensie gewoon zeggen, het bekijken van andere toestellen is geen optie. Terwijl in Nederland voor de show is gekeken naar de Rafale, Typhoon en later de Gripen NG en F-16 block 60 of zo......
De basis waarop deze toestellen met elkaar werden vergelijken is overigens dan weer volledig toegeschreven naar één kandidaat. de JSF. tja dan is het ook best logisch dat dan alleen de JSF (op papier) aan de eisen voldoet......
De Nederlandse situatie lijkt dus meer op die van Noorwegen. Denemarken lijkt er iets eerlijker in te staan.
Air Force F-35s, Drones May Square Off in Budget Battle
February 2012
By Dan Parsons
Unmanned aerial vehicles have become a potent portion of the U.S. Air Force inventory and an indispensable weapon in the global war on terror.
But a budget crunch and turf wars with old-guard pilots could threaten progress made during 10 years of combat, experts said.
"There's not going to be a way of putting this genie back in the bottle," retired Navy Vice Adm. Joseph W. Dyer told National Defense. "The world has changed. That doesn't mean advocates of today's manned aircraft won't try to put it back in the bottle. But it ain't going."
The Defense Department is aiming for greater integration of all unmanned systems, to include aerial vehicles, submersibles and ground robots, according to the Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, a Defense Department report detailing the use of UAVs through fiscal 2036.
For the Air Force, the biggest challenge is figuring out how UAV procurement relates to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, said Peter Singer, senior fellow for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative. The Air Force's desired procurement numbers have not changed for the troubled next-generation fighter while program costs have ballooned. At some point, Air Force buyers will have to make a decision on which platforms to buy and how many.
In a Jan. 5 press conference outlining the Obama administration's new defense strategy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other officials were tightlipped about potential cuts to the F-35 program. They deferred all questions about the costly aircraft until the fiscal year 2013 budget proposal is released in February.
However, they were less reticent about areas where the department would increase investment. Unmanned systems and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance technologies were on their list of items that may see funding boosts rather than cuts.
While the F-35 has been in development, the Air Force has added more than 300 strike-capable Reaper drones to its inventory. But the Reaper is flying and F-35 is not, Singer added. He expects an alteration in procurement numbers for the F-35 before 2020.
Nothing is certain until UAVs become programs of record.
"In the past, these systems were primarily funded out of contingency operations," said Singer. "So they were directly competitive with manned systems. That is starting to change."
The 25 most expensive Defense Department programs of record share one thing in common — none of them are unmanned.
To ensure their continued development and integration, UAVs must "knock someone off the list," Singer said. "It's going to have to be an existing program of record, with its own office, with its own tribe, with its own factory."
UAV programs could hack away at funding for F-35, but Dyer warned of scaling back fighter procurement before unmanned technology has evolved to fill the gap. As it stands, unmanned aircraft have flown only in uncontested airspace. As U.S. military focus shifts to the Pacific, the Air Force could be confronted by enemy fighters in unfriendly skies, a mission UAVs aren't yet designed to handle.
In that arena, Dyer, now chief operating officer of iRobot, likened the challenge to "the first principle of wing walking."
"You don't let go of the plane you're holding onto (JSF) until you've got something else to hold onto," he said. "JSF is a necessary program. I wish it were under cost and ahead of schedule, but it's not. It may still be a necessary stepping-stone. Rarely, even with a disruptive technology, do you totally let go of the old one even though you've got the new one."
Still, the Air Force risks trailing in a global race to modernize if it loses momentum in developing drone technology by returning to an overwhelming focus on manned aircraft, Dyer said. If the United States doesn't fully embrace the role of unmanned aerial vehicles and become a top manufacturer of the systems for both commercial and civilian use, a rival nation could usurp its primacy of the skies.
The progression toward a robust unmanned-vehicle fleet reached an inflection point this year. For the first time in its history, the Air Force trained more UAV pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined.
The service currently has 1,028 UAV pilots and 743 sensor operators. It will need at least 2,110 pilots and 1,479 sensor operators to staff its projected fleet by fiscal 2015, said a September Air Force report to Congress on the future of its unmanned aerial systems.
The Air Force had 255 active Global Hawk, Predator and Reaper drones in its inventory in fiscal year 2011. That number is expected to grow to 420 by fiscal 2017, according to the report.
Remotely piloted aircraft have burst onto the scene much in the way other revolutionary weapons, like machine guns before World War I, did. The technology has outpaced its attendant doctrine and strategic uses, Singer said.
It is up to Pentagon officials and farsighted Air Force leaders to embrace UAV technology and guide their integration into the future, said Singer. Though they have been used to great effect in Iraq, and are still flying in Afghanistan and elsewhere, UAV technology is in its infancy, he said. Its limitations and vulnerabilities today will not hamstring UAV mission sets for long.
"Right now, we're in the nineteen-teens relative to manned aviation," Singer said. "The common mistake historically is that the first generation is the way it will always be. We're going to figure this out, but almost every new technology isn't originally set up the optimal way."
Currently, each unmanned aerial vehicle is flown by one remotely located pilot, an arrangement that is "inefficient and expensive," Dyer said.
Dyer, who last served as commander of Naval Air Systems Command, and was responsible for engineering and analysis of unmanned aerial systems, believes "the definition of what [makes] a great pilot is going to change."
"The Air Force and Navy will always have [fighter and bomber] pilots, but you can debate whether future operators will be airborne," Dyer said. "But a great pilot in 2020, is going to be the guy who flies an airplane and concurrently commands a fleet of unmanned vehicles. I happen to believe that a swarm of unmanned systems controlled by a manned system will have situational advantages."
Increased integration and teaming does not come without risks. Overburdening helicopter and jet pilots with tasks and information creates safety hazards. Therefore, both military officials and industry engineers are giving drones greater autonomy in flight.
"Already many of these unmanned systems are not remotely piloted in the traditional sense of the term," Singer said. "Some of them are more managed than piloted."
Drones can already fly and spy on their own without a pilot directly supervising. The Navy's stealthy X-47B built by Northrop Grumman demonstrated that ability in October and is being developed to autonomously land on the deck of a moving aircraft carrier.
With air-to-air refueling technology, it could theoretically stay aloft for days at a time. UAV operators could soon set them to monitor an area, leave their workstations and return when a desired target is acquired or an emergency occurs. They could be programmed to alert operators when a certain building's door is opened or be set to follow footprints to an insurgent hideout, Singer said. But drone technology hasn't made it to that point yet.
UAVs currently operate at "level one" integration where the information they gather is interpreted by a remote operator, then communicated to the pilot of a manned aircraft or to troops on the ground. Some operate at "level two," where the drone's video feed is directly linked to the flat-panel display of a manned aircraft.
As technology progresses to level three, pilots or copilots of manned aircraft will take control of the drone's sensors. At level four, aircraft pilots will control the drone's flight and firing mechanism. Ultimately, with level-five teaming, manned aircraft crews will take complete control of their partner drones to include takeoff, landing and flight and fire control.
The Army and Navy, to some extent, are already progressing down this evolutionary path. Army scout helicopter squadrons are being paired with General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones to aid in target acquisition and reconnaissance missions. The first such manned-unmanned team will be deployed to Afghanistan this year, said Command Sgt. Maj. Lebert Beharie, who is assigned to the Army's 101st Combat Aviation Brigade. Beharie spoke at Helicon Summit East, hosted by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement, on integrating unmanned with rotary-wing aircraft.
The Navy is parsing deployment of its Fire Scout rotary-winged drones along with UH-60 Blackhawks aboard its Littoral Combat Ships. The Fire Scout, built by Northrop Grumman Corp., is set to deploy this year under a military assessment trial, Navy Capt. Douglas Ten Hoopen, said at the conference.
Though to some degree necessary for such visionary teaming of UAVs with manned aircraft, questions arise regarding how much autonomy drones should be given.
There are ethical concerns surrounding whether they will identify and attack an insurgent without immediate permission from a human. International law has not caught up to the technology on that score, Singer said.
The reigning maxim in drone technology is "man-in-the-loop" where a human must at some point give a command if live ordnance is to be deployed against a target. The question remains at what point should the human master give the command.
"The idea of man-in-the-loop has many definitions," Singer said. "Cruise missiles can do target recognition. Does that make them drones? Is it necessary to guide munitions to their ultimate destination?"
While ethicists weigh that question, the competition is on to acquire and advance drone technology. The United States is not the only player in what is shaping up to be a global unmanned-systems arms race.
At least 45 other nations are buying or building robotic systems for land, sea and air. The Chinese recently had a fly-off that demonstrated an unmanned aerial combat vehicle they intend to eventually land on a carrier deck and arm with air-to-surface weapons. The Chengdu Pterodactyl I is a Predator drone knock off, but likely does not boast technology equal to its U.S. counterpart, Singer said. South Korea also has some UAVs under development. Even non-state actors have caught on to the trend. Thieves in Taiwan recently used a drone to pull off a heist, Singer said.
"We're still ahead with this technology," Singer said. "But whether it's technology or war, there's no such thing as a permanent first-actor advantage. We should not rest on our laurels. We have to assume we're not the only ones operating these systems."
The United States led the world first in agriculture, then aerospace and later information technology. Dyer believes it can be the leader in development of unmanned systems of all sorts, if the technology is embraced by the military — creating a ready market.
"South Korea, Israel, China, Singapore — these folks are nurturing an industry and we're still searching for an industrial strategy," he said.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/February/Pages/AirForceF-35s,DronesMaySquareOffinBudgetBattle.aspx
Op dit moment zijn Zuid Korea en Indonesie met behulp van van Lockheed Martin aan een stealht Fighter van de 4,5 generatie met AESA radar namelijk het KF-X project
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/10/seoul-air-show-kf-x-vision-unv.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KF-X#cite_note-14
Mijn visie is dat het een mix is van de F35 en de F16X uitgerust is met Block 60 techniek en de SABR radar, waarom denk ik dat omdat de T50/TA50 trainer/fighter gebruik maak van F16 techniek.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article23.html
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/sabr/
http://www.koreaaero.com/english/business/t50_01.asp
In Zweden wordt momenteel de discussie in het parlement gevoerd over de aanschaf van 100 Gipen NG vanaf 2020, dat zijn positieve berichten.
Hierbij wordt ook gekeken naar een soort van Update van de B/C standaard naar E/F, iets wat volgens Saab kostbaarder is dan de bouw van 100 NG's.
Wordt vervolgd.
Voor de liefhebber van het Zweeds en Google Translate:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=4914333
Russia's 3rd Su-35S fighter starts test flights
Russia's Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer started test flights of its third series-produced Su-35S Flanker-E multirole fighter on Tuesday, the company said.
The aircraft took off from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur airfield in Russia's Far East, spending more than two hours in the air testing propulsion and control systems.
The Su-35 Flanker-E superiority fighter is powered by two 117S engines with thrust vectoring. It can effectively engage several air targets simultaneously using both guided and unguided missiles and weapon systems.
The aircraft has been touted as "4++ generation using fifth-generation technology."
After the tests are completed, the Su-35 will be transferred to the Russian Defense Ministry.
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/russias-3rd-su-35s-fighter-starts-test-flights-39709/#ixzz1jnqfhFqy
Extra informatie :
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Su-35S-Flanker.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-Su-35S-Flanker-March-2010.pdf
In A2A gevecht verliezen : 1 SU-35S tegen 10 F-35
Citaat van: Harald op 18/01/2012 | 11:15 uur
In A2A gevecht verliezen : 1 SU-35S tegen 10 F-35
En hier heb je een zwaarwegende reden waarom ik zou kiezen voor een meer capabele kist voor de Klu.
Navy Will Select NGJ Contractor In 2013
Jan 18, 2012
By David Fulghum
Sensing continued financial pressure even in the well-protected electronic-warfare domain, the U.S. Navy is slicing through red tape to streamline acquisition of its prized Next Generation Jammer (NGJ).
Savings from a decision to select a single contractor earlier than planned are being estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. With help from the offices of the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics and the chief of naval operations, the Navy wangled approval to pick a single contractor—instead of two—for the technology development phase of the program that is slated to begin in 2013. The downselect had been planned for the engineering and manufacturing development phase in 2015. The NGJ program is in a technology maturation phase that ends in April.
"The changes we had approved for NGJ will make it more affordable and help us get an early start on some of the integration," says Navy Capt. John Green, chief of the airborne electronic attack (AEA) and EA-6B Prowler program office. "It's huge to be able to avoid completely that kind of cost. With this decision, we are a fully funded program to develop the NGJ system and integrate it on to the EA-18G Growler."
Streamlining aside, contractors worry about some aspects of the project. They do not think the NGJ will be added to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on time, or perhaps at all, because there have been so many delays in getting through the JSF program basics, according to a vice president in one of the competing companies. "There is a concept for making [the F-35] an electronic attack platform, but they can't even think about those sorts of things yet," the official says. That means NGJ production might stretch out considerably, unless the system is adapted to other designs, most likely unmanned platforms with both stealthy and non-stealthy designs, which could be a boon to industry, contractors agree.
"If there are going to be opportunities for conventional [non-stealth] aircraft applications, NGJ is going to present a franchise opportunity for the winner," the industry official says. "It will provide financial backing for [development of further] increased capability."
Meanwhile, operational use of the Growler is gaining some definition.
"There's a discussion of stand-in jamming at closer ranges versus a modified escort [jamming] mission that would require a higher-power, standoff capability," says a second industry executive, also involved in the competition. "The Navy's primary motivation is that the Growlers provide the escort for the F/A-18E/Fs Super Hornets so that they can get close enough [to targets] to operate. But they can't do that without electronic attack support. I wouldn't be surprised if NGJ migrated to unmanned aircraft to keep aircrews safe."
Another concern for some is BAE Systems' place as the incumbent electronic warfare (EW) house.
"We have the F-22 with passive EW, JSF with passive capability initially, but with self-protection built into it, and the latest Saudi Arabian F-15s [with] the digital EW system," the second official says. All were awarded to BAE, so, "You would expect that BAE has a leg up in any competition that would call for inserting a digital EW capability," he says.
Others dismiss the notion, pointing out that BAE's approach on the JSF is quite different than that being considered for the NGJ. Four teams—BAE Systems, ITT/Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon—are vying for the NGJ contract.
An industry day is scheduled for the week of Jan. 24 to answer questions about the new strategy, and Navy officials hope the early selection of a single contractor will trigger a flurry of subcontracting and new teaming arrangements among the former competitors.
"Leadership from my level up would like to see a lot of teaming," Green says. "Teaming reduces our risk, so we're encouraging industry to team. Going to one vendor sooner encourages them to think that way. It's an additional forcing function that I think will lead industry to the conclusion that the Defense Department has already come to."
A sense of urgency has been added to the NGJ acquisition process as the result of lessons learned during last year's simultaneous electronic-attack operations in three theaters: Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Navy's current AEA capability is dependent on the aging, out-of-production ALQ-99 jammer pods carried first by the EA-6B Prowler and now by the Growler.
"When we first jumped into [Operation] Odyssey Dawn [over Libya], we were still supporting aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq—three fronts," Green says. "To spread those dwindling assets out was really a challenge to support, but it was also tough for the warfighter. They had to move assets around or do without in some areas. We just don't have enough ALQ-99 jammer pods and [electronic attack] aircraft, particularly in some key mission areas, to do everything we needed to do. If ever there was a reason for the Next Generation Jammer, it was validated by the lessons learned from trying to support three fronts."
The decision to pick a single contractor was approved by Defense Department and Navy officials in late December and will be announced late this month at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division's 42nd annual EW symposium.
"We worked very closely with the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition and the chief of naval operations's staff to look at developmental risks and determine what could we do," Green says. "This new approach will save us hundreds of millions [of dollars] . . . for a couple of reasons. During [technology development], we're going to be prototyping and testing those systems. That's also when we do the preliminary design review and make sure all the technologies are mature enough to press into actual full-scale development of the system.
"This is a major change from our original acquisition strategy," Green notes. "The Defense Department made a significant investment in [technology maturation] and burned down enough technology risk so that we are confident we can select a single team now to build NGJ. The request for proposals is being drafted and we're planning to release it in May."
The NGJ is being designed to provide improved airborne electronic-attack capabilities against a wide variety of radio-frequency targets. Also, the technology is to provide greater electronic agility and precision, both spectrally and spatially. Roughly, the goal is better interoperability with other systems—such as the U.S. Marine Corps Intrepid Tiger II communications attack system and the U.S. Air Force's miniature air-launched decoy jammer—and an increased capability to deny, degrade and deceive enemy radar and other electronic systems.
Other improvements will be tied to major increases in effective radiated power. They include more powerful jamming as well as much greater standoff ranges from which to engage air defense radars, communications and data links.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/16/AW_01_16_2012_p27-413263.xml&headline=Navy%20Will%20Select%20NGJ%20Contractor%20In%202013&next=10
F-35 Does Not Match Predecessor's Acceleration Specs
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/20 ... al-011812/
"Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's program manager for the F-35. "The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we're replacing."
The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35's relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can't quite match its predecessors.
"We're dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that's a certain size, you have a wing that's a certain size, you have an engine that's a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,"
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16745.html
F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal
hieronder delen van het totale artikel :
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising.
"It's a strike fighter," Aboulafia said. "It's not an interceptor; it's not an F-22."
....
The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.
But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.
"What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally," Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.
Even fully loaded, the F-35's performance doesn't change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.
In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35's acceleration is better than almost anything flying.
......
Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.
"I can't even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing," Smith said. "The acceleration is much better than an F-16."
But the F-35's aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane.
Burbage added that while the F-35 is designed as a supersonic fighter, it's not optimized for the extremely high supersonic speeds that the Raptor was designed to operate at.
"This is not a supercruising airplane like the F-22," Burbage said.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120118/DEFREG02/301180013/F-35-May-Miss-Acceleration-Goal?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Begrijp ik nu goed dat de F35 minder snel kan accelereren als een clean F16/F18, en dat men nu aangeeft. "Ja, maar het is met bewapening, waar het verschil gemaakt wordt"? Dat houdt dus in dat als de F35 na de strike snel weg moet wezen, deze dus ingehaald wordt door die lege F16/F18 die zich ook geleegd heeft.
Overigens stond dit ook in dat artikel:
CitaatA recent report by the Defense Department's top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy's F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration.
Dat wordt dus gewoon einde F35C.
Dit staat er ook nog in:
CitaatThus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane's acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed's job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet's acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.
Ze zijn zich dus al weer aan het indekken en ze zijn er nog lang niet. De F35 wordt straks een prachtig electronisch platform, met slechte vliegkwaliteiten.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 19/01/2012 | 10:09 uur
Begrijp ik nu goed dat de F35 minder snel kan accelereren als een clean F16/F18, en dat men nu aangeeft. "Ja, maar het is met bewapening, waar het verschil gemaakt wordt"? Dat houdt dus in dat als de F35 na de strike snel weg moet wezen, deze dus ingehaald wordt door die lege F16/F18 die zich ook geleegd heeft.
klopt, dat bedoelen ze.
maar hoeveel kan een F-35 meenemen intern, ..... een F-16, F-18, F-15 kan alleen extern meer meenemen dan een F-35
intern weapons bay F-35 : (volgens mij) totaal : 2x Amraam en 2x bom, Totaal capaciteit van 3,000 lb (1300 kg)
extern F-35 : 6 stuks wing pylons, geen centerline en geen wingtips, Totaal capaciteit van 15,000 lb (6800 kg)
samen dus 18.000 lb (8100 kg)
Wapenlasten in vergelijking met de F-35:Eurofighter, Gripen, A10, A7, Mirage 2000, F-14D, F-18C < F-35 = F-16C, F-18SH, A6 < Rafale, F-15E, F-111
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml
Zie hieronder wat de capaciteiten zijn van wapenladingen van verschillende oude en nieuwe toestellen :
F-16C : Hardpoints: 2× wing-tip Air-to-air missile launch rails, 6× under-wing & 3× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of payload
F-18C : Hardpoints: 9 total: 2× wingtips missile launch rail, 4× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) external fuel and ordnance
F-18SH : Hardpoints: 11 total: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance
F-15E : Hardpoints: 2 wing pylons, fuselage pylons, bomb racks on CFTs with a capacity of 23,000 lb (10,400 kg) of external fuel and ordnance
Eurofighter : Hardpoints: Total of 13: 8 × under-wing; and 5 × under-fuselage pylon stations; holding up to 7,500 kg (16,500 lb) of payload
Rafale : Hardpoints: 14 for Armée de l'Air version (Rafale B,C), 13 for Aéronavale version (Rafale M) with a capacity of 9,500 kg (21,000 lb) external fuel and ordnance and provisions
Gripen : up to 14,330 lb (6500 kg)
A10 Thunderbolt II : Hardpoints: 11 (8× under-wing and 3× under-fuselage pylon stations) with a capacity of 16,000 lb (7,260 kg) and provisions
A7 Corsair II : Hardpoints: 6× under-wing and 2× fuselage pylon stations (for mounting AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs only) with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and provisions
A6 Intruder : Hardpoints: 5 total: 4 wing and 1 fuselage with 18,000 lb (8,170 kg) load
F14D Tomcat : Hardpoints: 10 total: 6× under-fuselage, 2× under nacelles and 2× on wing gloves with a capacity of 14,500 lb (6,600 kg) of ordnance and fuel tanks
F105 Thunderchief : Hardpoints: 5 total: 4× under-wing, 1× centerline pylon stations plus an internal bomb bay with a capacity of Up to 14,000 lb (6,400 kg) of ordnance
F4E Phantom : Up to 18,650 lb (8,480 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints
F-111 aardvark : Hardpoints: 9 in total (8× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage between engines) plus 2 attach points in weapons bay with a capacity of 31,500 lb (14,300 kg) and provision
Mirage 2000C : Hardpoints: 9 total (4× under-wing, 5× under-fuselage) with a capacity of 6,300 kg (13,900 lb) external fuel and ordnance
MMRCA, 10 more days and more rumors
On January 4, the MMRCA annoucement was to be made in 3 more weeks. Now, on January 16, it is intended to occur in 10 days or at least before the end of January. as per the last reports in the India press quoting sources from the IAF and the Ministry of Defense. So, it seems that the schedule is still more or less on track.
The Indian Express reports :
" The proposals of the two contenders — French Dassault Rafale and EADS Eurofighter — have been scrutinised and final calculations related to life cycle costs and transfer of technology details are being finalised. While IAF sources have said the winner would be announced in the next 10 days, Defence Ministry officials said the decision would be announced by the end of this month."
[...]
"The final signing of the contract, however could take up to six months, the sources said. The original plan was to sign the contract this financial year, but it could be shifted beyond March."
Now the rumors of the week :
Rumor N°1 : The Rafale package would be L1. What to think about this rumor ? Well, last week, it was supposed to be the Eurofighter, so it's a draw.
Rumor N°2 : Eurofighter partners, BAE and EADS would "dispute" each other in order to be the prime bidder of the consortium in India. Formally, it is EADS which is in charge of the Indian market. The question is why would BAE try to interfer with EADS leadership so late in the process ?
Rumor N°3 : Dassault would have just hired a famous Indian Public Relation firm. If true, this move rises the same question ... why so late in the process ?
All the answers in 10 days !
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/
Citaat van: Harald op 19/01/2012 | 12:34 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 19/01/2012 | 10:09 uur
Gripen : up to 14,330 lb (6500 kg)
In de "Gripen_Briefing_ Farnborough_ 2010" pressbriefing staat het max gewicht van 7200 kg. Elders staat dat de Gripen NG 10 hardpoints heeft. ik tel er echter maar 9: 2 wingtips, en 4 onder de vleugel en 3 onder de romp. Maar wat je wel vaak ziet is dat er per hardpoint onder de vleugel bijvoorbeeld twee Meteors meegenomen kunnen worden, één recht onder de pylon en eentje schuin naar buiten. Of bijvoorbeeld een speciaal ophangsysteem waar meerdere MK82s of SDB onder kunnen hangen. De zogenaamde twin stores.
Geheel in lijn met de lichtere wapen trend waar ook de SDB deel van uitmaakt zou je ook nog de Brimstone kunnen noemen, passen er 3 van op een pylon als ik het goed begrepen heb. In veel gevallen geschikter dan een Maverick denk ik.
Citaat van: Chrisis op 19/01/2012 | 14:26 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 19/01/2012 | 12:34 uur
Citaat van: Enforcer op 19/01/2012 | 10:09 uur
Gripen : up to 14,330 lb (6500 kg)
In de "Gripen_Briefing_ Farnborough_ 2010" pressbriefing staat het max gewicht van 7200 kg. Elders staat dat de Gripen NG 10 hardpoints heeft. ik tel er echter maar 9: 2 wingtips, en 4 onder de vleugel en 3 onder de romp. Maar wat je wel vaak ziet is dat er per hardpoint onder de vleugel bijvoorbeeld twee Meteors meegenomen kunnen worden, één recht onder de pylon en eentje schuin naar buiten. Of bijvoorbeeld een speciaal ophangsysteem waar meerdere MK82s of SDB onder kunnen hangen. De zogenaamde twin stores.
Klopt helemaal, de Gripen NG kan meer wapenlast meenemen dan een "gewone" Gripen
UKIP: 'UK must build naval Typhoon'
19 January 2012
The UK should cancel the purchase of the F-35C and invest in developing a naval variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has said.
Lord Alexander Hesketh, UKIP's defence spokesman and former executive deputy chairman of Babcock International Group, said that adopting a naval Typhoon would allow the UK to restore carrier strike capability on its Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers before 2020 while saving money and protecting UK jobs.
UKIP estimates suggest it would cost £1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around £80m.
In a statement the party said that the development costs would be similar to the cost of converting the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to use the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to be used with the F-35C. A naval Typhoon would take off from a 'ski jump' deck.
BAE Systems first conducted a concept study for a naval Typhoon in 1992, and there is 'marinized' Typhoon simulator at Farnborough, UKIP said.
"Apart from the greatly increased UK content, there will be no outside restriction on the export of aircraft as the UK will have control of the intellectual property of both the aircraft systems and weapons," the statement read.
Lord Hesketh, who resigned from Babcock in 2010 after saying the QE-class carrier programme was making the country a "laughing stock", said: "The F-35C programme should be scrapped before more taxpayers' money is wasted.
"It was another ludicrous decision to come out of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
"Much of the work to make the Typhoon fit for taking off and landing on aircraft carriers has already been undertaken. There is also the added bonus that it would preserve and create British jobs, plus give our aircraft carriers an earlier strike capability than 2020."
The Ministry of Defence originally discounted the development of a naval Typhoon for the carriers on "cost-effectiveness" grounds.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18574
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/01/2012 | 20:03 uur
The UK should cancel the purchase of the F-35C and invest in developing a naval variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has said.
Het zou gezien de (financiële)problemen rond de F35C zo maar eens realiteit kunnen worden. Daarnaast biedt een eventuele Indiase keuze (deze maand) voor de EF extra attractieve mogelijkheden voor Indiase marine.
Lockheed develops F-35 JSF fuel dump system repair solution 19 January 2012
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... r-solution
"Lockheed Martin has developed a solution to repair the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft's fuel dump system in a move to eliminate a potential fire hazard, Lockheed's JSF programme manager Tom Burbage has revealed.
The problems were highlighted in a Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review by the Pentagon's chief operational tester Michael Gilmore in November 2011, which claimed that the system's design poses a fire risk due to the wetting of external surfaces. Defense News has reported Burbage as saying that the present design pumps out fuel forcefully from a valve that is flush with the wing in order to keep the aircraft stealthy, which leads a portion of dumped fuel back into the aircraft....
...Burbage said: "We expect to have that configuration change back in the test airplane early this year."
In the F-35B version, developed specifically for the US Marine Corps (USMC), fuel runs very close to the roll-post ducts, a part of the short take-off and vertical landing (STVOL) system, causing ignition....
...The existing fleet is installed with a temporary solution and the permanent modification, to be integrated into all the production aircraft, will undergo testing in the second quarter of 2012,"
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16748.html
Citaat van: Enforcer op 19/01/2012 | 10:09 uur
Begrijp ik nu goed dat de F35 minder snel kan accelereren als een clean F16/F18, en dat men nu aangeeft. "Ja, maar het is met bewapening, waar het verschil gemaakt wordt"? Dat houdt dus in dat als de F35 na de strike snel weg moet wezen, deze dus ingehaald wordt door die lege F16/F18 die zich ook geleegd heeft. Overigens stond dit ook in dat artikel:
CitaatA recent report by the Defense Department's top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy's F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration.
Dat wordt dus gewoon einde F35C.
Dit staat er ook nog in:
CitaatThus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane's acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed's job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet's acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.
Ze zijn zich dus al weer aan het indekken en ze zijn er nog lang niet. De F35 wordt straks een prachtig electronisch platform, met slechte vliegkwaliteiten.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1209.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc396%2FPoleme%2FaviationJSFComparePerformanceericpalmersuperfvseverythingelse.jpg&hash=9627c5de9361dc982e09f5971b6f0a850e3d1dc5)
Offical: Panetta backing new F-35 fighter jet
Posted to: MilitaryLogin or register to post comments
The Associated Press
© January 20, 2012
By Robert Burns
WASHINGTON
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is giving fresh backing to the Marine Corps' version of the next-generation strike plane, the F-35, a U.S. defense official said.
The F-35, which is developing variants for the Navy and the Air Force, as well as for Britain and other allies, is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program. It also has faced schedule delays and other problems that raised doubts about its future. Ten years in, the total F-35 program cost has jumped from $233 billion to an estimated $385 billion. Recent estimates say the entire program could exceed $1 trillion over 50 years.
During a visit Friday to the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland, where the F-35 program is run, Panetta will announce that the Marines' version is no longer on what Panetta's predecessor, Robert Gates, called "probation," according to a U.S. defense official with knowledge of the decision. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.
Gates announced a year ago that if the Marines' version of the plane had not overcome its problems within two years he would attempt to cancel it. In practical terms, that threat lost its power when Gates resigned last summer.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/offical-panetta-backing-new-f35-fighter-jet
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/01/2012 | 07:11 uur
Offical: Panetta backing new F-35 fighter jet
Posted to: MilitaryLogin or register to post comments
The Associated Press
© January 20, 2012
By Robert Burns
During a visit Friday to the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland, where the F-35 program is run, Panetta will announce that the Marines' version is no longer on what Panetta's predecessor, Robert Gates, called "probation," according to a U.S. defense official with knowledge of the decision. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/offical-panetta-backing-new-f35-fighter-jet
En vervolgens zou het mij niet verbazen als hij nu de F35C "on probation" zet.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 20/01/2012 | 09:45 uur
En vervolgens zou het mij niet verbazen als hij nu de F35C "on probation" zet.
Dat zal vandaag denk ik niet gebeuren maar de C lijkt in een angstvallig tempo richting de afschietlijst te gaan.
Citaat van: dudge op 20/01/2012 | 10:17 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/01/2012 | 20:18 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/01/2012 | 20:03 uur
The UK should cancel the purchase of the F-35C and invest in developing a naval variant of the Eurofighter Typhoon, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has said.
Het zou gezien de (financiële)problemen rond de F35C zo maar eens realiteit kunnen worden. Daarnaast biedt een eventuele Indiase keuze (deze maand) voor de EF extra attractieve mogelijkheden voor Indiase marine.
Voor de Europese toestellen zou het goed nieuws zijn.
Maar wel een blamage voor het Britse ministerie van defensie. Het lijkt echt paniek voetbal.... De B versie lijkt het niet goed te gaan doen. weet je wat we stappen over naar de C. ..... De C heeft nu ineens kuren, weet je wat, laten we toch maar naar de B of naar de Naval Typhoon..... Laat ze dan eens goed kijken wat ze echt nodig hebben. Saab gaat ook met een bureau van specialisten in GB bezig met de mogelijkheden om de Sea Gripen te ontwikkelen. Dan heb je nog een heel mooi toestel de Rafale van de Fransen, vanaf het begin bedoelt als marine toestel. en dan natuurlijk ook nog de Super Hornet van de VS.
Citaat van: Chrisis op 20/01/2012 | 10:31 uur
Maar wel een blamage voor het Britse ministerie van defensie. Het lijkt echt paniek voetbal.... De B versie lijkt het niet goed te gaan doen. weet je wat we stappen over naar de C. ..... De C heeft nu ineens kuren, weet je wat, laten we toch maar naar de B of naar de Naval Typhoon..... Laat ze dan eens goed kijken wat ze echt nodig hebben. Saab gaat ook met een bureau van specialisten in GB bezig met de mogelijkheden om de Sea Gripen te ontwikkelen. Dan heb je nog een heel mooi toestel de Rafale van de Fransen, vanaf het begin bedoelt als marine toestel. en dan natuurlijk ook nog de Super Hornet van de VS.
Eerst maar eens afwachten of het zover komt. Als het wel die kant uitgaat dan ligt de SH meer dan voor de hand en mocht de EF het gaan redden in India dan komt misschien een marine variant van deze kist in beeld, die kan dan prima, in samenwerking met de indiërs worden (door)ontwikkeld.
A Simple Explanation of Why the F-35 Fighter Is Essential (or NOT)
(Source: Lexington Institute; issued January 19, 2012)
(See Editor's Note at bottom)
Big weapons systems attract controversy, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is no exception. Critics complain about many aspects of the program, but in the political arena all these particulars boil down to one question: Is the plane worth what the Pentagon proposes to pay for it?
The case for F-35 has to be compelling, because it will cost many times more than any other weapon system the military is planning to buy through mid-century. With Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta expected to offer the administration's latest endorsement of the F-35 at Patuxent River Naval Air Station on Friday, now is a good time to recall what the bedrock rationale is for buying 2,443 stealthy, single-engine fighters.
1. Air dominance is crucial to victory in modern warfare.
If you can't control the air space over contested territory, every facet of warfighting is harder. Not only are friendly ground forces vulnerable to attack from above, but the mobility, firepower, reconnaissance and resupply they count on from aircraft may not be available. That is why the first move in every recent U.S. military campaign has been to assure air dominance by destroying enemy combat planes and suppressing air defenses. Air dominance is the main reason why no U.S. soldier has been killed by hostile aircraft since the Korean War. The F-35 was designed to assure American forces will continue to have air dominance for the next 40 years, and to leverage that dominance in carrying out a range of other missions such as precision bombing and fire support of ground troops.
2. As threats evolve, air fleets must be modernized.
Technology does not stand still, especially in the information age. New capabilities are continuously becoming available to potential adversaries, such as agile missiles and radars that can counter the defenses of Cold War fighters. Also, new sensors, datalinks and munitions are appearing that potentially allow U.S. planes to accomplish vital missions more effectively. However, the development of most planes in the joint fleet today predated the advent of digital information systems and stealth technology. It therefore is increasingly difficult for the joint force's industrial-age aircraft to keep up with the proliferation of new capabilities in other countries. The F-35 was designed to integrate all the technologies likely to be relevant to future warfighting, with built-in potential for upgrades as new innovations appear.
3. If America skips a generation of technology, it will lose its edge.
Politicians in both parties occasionally talk about "skipping a generation of technology" as a way of avoiding the costs associated with developing current military systems. Such talk is most common when threats are thought to be receding. But that is not a practical alternative to purchasing the F-35.
First, countries like India and China are already capable of defeating existing U.S. combat aircraft, and many of those aircraft have grown decrepit with age.
Second, there is no way of knowing when the next big threat will appear, but being unprepared probably hastens its coming.
Third, the leap-ahead option for air power usually proposed is unmanned aircraft, however they will lack the survivability, agility, versatility and lethality to match manned fighters for decades to come. Thus, if F-35 development falters America is likely to lose its edge in the air fairly quickly.
4. F-35 is the only affordable near-term solution available.
The reason the F-35 program looks so expensive is that it is developing a family of planes with common features to replace the Cold War aircraft of three different military services (and a dozen allies). If each of those services was developing its own unique aircraft, the cost would be higher. And if each service decided to keep upgrading the tactical aircraft it already has for the period when F-35 is supposed to be operational, the cost would be astronomical -- about $4 trillion over 50 years, using government methodology. With production of the Air Force's F-22 fighter now canceled and no survivable fighter other than F-35 under development in the West, the Joint Strike Fighter is the only affordable option for modernizing air fleets, consuming less than five percent of the Pentagon's budget in its peak spending year. Losing a war for lack of adequate air power would incur costs far beyond the Pentagon.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This "simple explanation" is not quite what the author would have us believe: the first three points are true, but do not bolster the F-35, while the fourth point, which does, is more than questionable. More precisely:
1. No-one would dream of questioning that air dominance is vital. But the US has enjoyed air dominance long before the F-35 came along, and will do so long after it is retired because this rests on training and state-of-the-art electronics much more than on airframe performance. Indeed, Lockheed-Martin and the US Air Force already describe the F-22 as an air-dominance fighter, so clearly the F-35 need not shoulder that responsibility just yet.
2. In much the same vein, no-one questions the need to modernize air fleets. That is why Lockheed is making the F-16 Block 52 and Boeing the F-15SE, three decades after these aircraft first entered service. Along with the latest F-18E, these aircraft could quite satisfactorily upgrade the US air combat fleet, for 20 years if not quite 40, but at a fraction of the cost of the F-35.
3. Skipping a generation of technology is quite another kettle of fish. For all the marketing hoopla, the F-35's much touted "5th generation" capabilities amount to little that current aircraft such as Eurofighter and Rafale cannot do, with the notable exception of airframe stealth – if it works.
With Chinese, Russian and Indian fighters also catching up, the most astute course of action for the US would be to jump the F-35's so-called "5th generation" and focus its money and energy on developing a 6th generation of combat aircraft that would conclusively out-perform its competitors in 20 years or so. That would truly maintain the US technological edge.
And the F-35 has nothing to do with America's "edge in the air," especially as it is designed for air-to-ground (Joint Strike Fighter) and not for air-to-air missions, something that its proponents tend to consistently overlook.
4. Finally, what to make of the final argument, that the F-35 is the only affordable near-term solution available? This is demonstrably false, as the F-35 is neither the only option (see point 1 above) nor even remotely affordable: its unit price for LRIP 5 batch aircraft is almost $160 million – and that's without engines nor weapons.
So, by applying the same reasoning offered by the author, the only logical course of action is to scrap the F-35 and concentrate on developing a 6th-generation fighter that will actually meet military specifications.
There is no way to explain why the F-35 is essential, because it isn't – except for Lockheed Martin and possibly, the Marine Corps, who can still sell the idea of deploying STOVL aircraft in beachheads to justify the continued existence of their large-deck amphibious ships.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132057/a-simpler-explanation-of-why-f_35-is-dispensable.html
Citaat van: Chrisis op 20/01/2012 | 10:31 uur
Maar wel een blamage voor het Britse ministerie van defensie. Het lijkt echt paniek voetbal.... De B versie lijkt het niet goed te gaan doen. weet je wat we stappen over naar de C. ..... De C heeft nu ineens kuren, weet je wat, laten we toch maar naar de B of naar de Naval Typhoon..... Laat ze dan eens goed kijken wat ze echt nodig hebben. Saab gaat ook met een bureau van specialisten in GB bezig met de mogelijkheden om de Sea Gripen te ontwikkelen. Dan heb je nog een heel mooi toestel de Rafale van de Fransen, vanaf het begin bedoelt als marine toestel. en dan natuurlijk ook nog de Super Hornet van de VS.
UKIP is een Nationalistisch, anti-EU Flutpartijtje dat eigenlijk helemaal geen benul heeft wat defensie betreft. Aan hun "mening en inbreng" heb ik echt wel geen nood. "Invest in a naval variant of EF"??? Ik meen op dit forum al gelezen te hebben dat dat een heel nieuw vliegtuig zou worden dan. Dus daarmee gepaard heb je ook weer de R&D-tijd, constructie en testen... . Het landingsgestel alleen al en de fuselage zijn structureel niet sterk genoeg en ook de configuratie van die landingsgestel is niet goed voor carrier OPS (te smalle "spoor"breedte) enz. En wat dan met de te produceren aantallen? Wie gaat een EF-N(aval) afnemen? De Britten... Geen Duitsers (geen carriers), Spanjaarden en Italianen (hebben STOVL van doen)... De Fransen hebben hun eigen Rafale M(arine). In Europa alleen al is er dus, behalve de Britten, geen enkele potentiele afnemer.
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 20/01/2012 | 17:09 uur
In Europa alleen al is er dus, behalve de Britten, geen enkele potentiele afnemer.
En wereldwijd zie ik alleen kansen voor een dergelijk apparaat bij de Indiase marine (als er voor de EF wordt gekozen). Het is een simpele conclusie, als het in India de EF wordt dan zou een marine variant heel voorzichtig kunnen worden overwogen al zal dan het aantal af te nemen NEF niet als attractief gezien worden.
Realiteit geeft echter aan dat, bij annuleren van de F35C, de Britten voor de SH gaan.
UKIP solution to carrier aircraft
Friday, 20th January 2012
UKIP has outlined an alternative plan to the Royal Navy's troubled multi-billion pound fighter plane programme.
Britain is due to buy around 50 American F-35C Joint Strike Fighters at a total cost of £5bn pounds having already cancelled the F-35B at a cost several hundred million pounds which resulted in the acquisition of one unusable prototype.
However leaked documents reveal that the F-35C has failed to take off and land safely in simulated tests.
The design flaw means that the plane's arrestor hook, a device used to stop the fighter overshooting a carrier's landing deck once it had touched down, is too close to the plane's wheels to be effective.
A possible redesign will no doubt be costly, or possibly difficult to implement, thus adding to the growing list of difficulties that has pushed the unit cost to currently beyond $155million.
Lord Hesketh, UKIP defence spokesman, believes that an alternative cost-effective solution exists which would not only work practically, but would also protect and create British jobs.
UKIP's solution would be to 'marinize' the Eurofighter Typhoon, an aircraft which requires no catapult system - electric or steam, only a ski jump as originally envisaged.
BAE Systems, one of the three companies in the consortium that produces the Typhoon, first conducted the concept study of this in 1992.
The study saw the development of the Thrust Vectoring Control (TVC) and there is a 'marinized' Eurofighter simulator at Farnborough.
Research and development costs are estimated at £1.4billion which is roughly equivalent to the costs associated to modify the Queen Elizabeth (QE) class aircraft carriers to use the new (but not yet in service) US-built Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).
There are currently two QE-class aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy with the first expected to enter service in 2016. However the carrier will not have strike capability under the current programme until 2020 at the earliest.
This was just one of the controversial decisions to be made following the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Not only would UKIP's plan offer a realistic solution to ensuring new carrier strike capability earlier than anticipated, it would also help protect British jobs as choosing to 'marinize' the Typhoon would extend the life of the Typhoon production line in Warton, Lancashire.
There would also be the opportunity for export for a fully 'marinized' Typhoon, particularly to the Indian Air Force under their Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) programme.
The unit cost of the Typhoon will also save the Royal Navy money. The Typhoon costs roughly £80million, whilst the F-35C comes in at £100million a unit.
Furthermore the 'marinized' Typhoon will be not affected by the technology restrictions that have bedevilled the F35 programme since its inception, particularly with regard to the software source codes which the US have consistently refused to provide access to. These codes are integral to the installation of all weapons systems. In the case of the 'marinized' Typhoon, apart from the greatly increased UK content, there will be no outside restriction on the export of aircraft as the UK will have control of the intellectual property of both the aircraft systems and weapons.
Lord Hesketh, UKIP's defence spokesman, said:
"The F-35C programme should be scrapped before more taxpayers' money is wasted. It was another ludicrous decision to come out of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
"Much of the work to make the Typhoon fit for taking off and landing on aircraft carriers has already been undertaken. There is also the added bonus that it would preserve and create British jobs, plus give our aircraft carriers an earlier strike capability than 2020."
Lord Hesketh has previously commented upon some of the decisions to arise from the Strategic Defence and Security Review. In October 1993 he joined the board of defence company Babcock International Group where he became non-executive deputy chairman in 1996. He resigned his position in November 2010 after saying that the Royal Navy's new QE-class aircraft carriers would make the country a "laughing stock".
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2585-ukip-solution-to-carrier-aircraft
Boeing says still in UAE jet contest, sees opportunities growing in Gulf region
Friday, 20 January 2012
By Reuters
Boeing said on Friday it remains a contender to sell fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates, after a much-awaited $10 billion deal with France's Dassault hit a roadblock in November.
"The UAE deal is still being treated as an open competition," Paul Oliver, Boeing's vice-president for international business development for Middle East & Africa, told Reuters at the Bahrain Air Show On Friday.
The world's largest company operating both in commercial aerospace and defense has briefed UAE officials on its F-15 and F-18 combat planes, Oliver said in an interview.
The UAE, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, said in November the proposed terms of a widely expected contract with Dassault for the sale of at least 60 Rafale warplanes were unworkable.
That setback threw open the competition to other players, with the UAE asking to see details of a rival aircraft, the Typhoon built by Eurofighter, a consortium of companies from France, Germany, Italy and Britain.
"I can say that it's a heated competition .... we are responding to customer requests when they come in," Oliver said.
"I've no reason to believe that this is not still being treated as an open competition."
Dassault, which is struggling to make a Rafale sale outside France, is still in talks with the UAE.
The United Arab Emirates and its Gulf neighbors, threatened by Iran and internal unrest, have been steadily building up their military capabilities.
Last month, the U.S. government sealed a $29.4 billion deal for advanced Boeing F-15 fighter jets for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates inked a $3.5 billion deal with the United States for an advanced antimissile interception system.
Oliver said the U.S. firm is hopeful of landing another fighter jet deal in the Gulf this year.
"We hope to see potentially an announcement this year but these are all competitive and all government-to-government type transactions. But we are optimistic and we may see a decision in the region for another fighter aircraft," he said.
The U.S. plane manufacturer said both its fighter jets are being looked at closely by Gulf customers.
Boeing will not make any announcements at the Bahrain show, he said, but the company saw big opportunities in the region for their defense business.
He said Boeing had no plans to get back into the Indian fighter jet competition.
"The customers made a decision and we respect that. We are not trying to get in there....muddy the waters or anything like that."
That leaves the Eurofighter and Dassault in a race to sell India 126 fighter jets and help revamp the country''s defense industry. The deal is expected to be worth around $10 billion. American, Russian and Swedish bids were rejected in April.
The Eurofighter consortium includes Britain's BAE Systems, Italy's Finmeccanica and EADS which represents Germany and Spain.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/20/189495.html
Good and Bad News For F-35 Project – STOVL Variant is Now Off "Probation" But Report Warns of Possible Cuts to Italian Order
By David Pugliese
Defence Watch
There's good news and less than good news for the F-35 fighter project.
The good news for the project is that United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that he is rescinding probation for the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant.
Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino welcomed the news in a statement. Some 65 Canadian companies have already received approximately US$370 million in contracts related to the development and early production of F-35 parts and subsystems, according to the government. "Canada is not simply acquiring a fighter jet – we are a partner in a multinational effort to develop and field a fighter jet suited for the 21st century," according to the quote attributed to Fantino.
The not so great news is in Europe.
Aviation Week is reporting that cash-strapped Italy is set to begin a new round of defence cuts, in which for the first time, that country's participation in the F-35 "will be seriously threatened."
Italian military officials say that a sharp reduction in the number of F-35s that Italy will buy "is virtually certain," according to the magazine.
Italy is one of the largest international customers for the F-35 and had planned to buy 131 fighters.
In Denmark, that government is getting ready for a competition to select a new fighter aircraft, according to Defense News. The F-35 will be up against the Eurofighter, Grippen and Rafale.
Denmark too is looking to save money and wants to do its procurement in partnership with one or more NATO-aligned European states. According to Defense News, cost-cutting in Denmark has reduced the number of fighters needed from 48 to 30.
My earlier posting about the F-35 test aircraft conducting its first night flight also prompted some questions from Defence Watch readers.
A couple of readers noted that CDS Gen. Walter Natynczyk and Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps have been claiming for more than a year now that the F-35 is the best aircraft that meets all of Canada's requirements. "The F-35 Lightning II is the right tool, at the best value, to properly do the job that Canada and Canadians want their Air Force to carry out on their behalf," Lieutenant-General André Deschamps has pointed out.
But the readers questioned why these two men say this when the aircraft has yet to drop ordnance and just conducted its first ever flight at night?
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/01/22/good-and-bad-news-for-the-f-35-project-stovl-variant-is-now-off-probation-good-and-bad-news-for-the-f-35-project-stovl-variant-is-now-off-probation-but-reports/
Citaat van: dudge op 23/01/2012 | 10:04 uur
Het wordt al langere tijd verwacht dat Italië het aantal F35 orders zal terugschroeven. Niet alleen bij Italië trouwens, dat geld voor meer landen. Wanneer komt groot naar buiten dat Nederland geen 85 toestellen gaat kopen?
Pas na de deze kabinetsperiode... er wordt immers pas na 2014 een keuze gemaakt.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/01/2012 | 10:15 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 23/01/2012 | 10:04 uur
Het wordt al langere tijd verwacht dat Italië het aantal F35 orders zal terugschroeven. Niet alleen bij Italië trouwens, dat geld voor meer landen. Wanneer komt groot naar buiten dat Nederland geen 85 toestellen gaat kopen?
Pas na de deze kabinetsperiode... er wordt immers pas na 2014 een keuze gemaakt.
Dan is de SP aan de macht en komt die er helemaal niet meer........
Citaat van: Tanker op 23/01/2012 | 10:21 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/01/2012 | 10:15 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 23/01/2012 | 10:04 uur
Het wordt al langere tijd verwacht dat Italië het aantal F35 orders zal terugschroeven. Niet alleen bij Italië trouwens, dat geld voor meer landen. Wanneer komt groot naar buiten dat Nederland geen 85 toestellen gaat kopen?
Pas na de deze kabinetsperiode... er wordt immers pas na 2014 een keuze gemaakt.
Dan is de SP aan de macht en komt die er helemaal niet meer........
Daar heb ik wel enige zorgen over, stel dat wel de SP de grootste wordt. Nu in de peiling de grootste met 32, PVDA 17, D66 16, samen 65. Een coalitie samenstellen zal niet makkelijk zijn.
http://content1a.omroep.nl/5972fafcc3faceb20f8d9c9fea2e70c0/4f1d2862/nos/docs/220112_peiling.pdf
En een VVD samen met de SP zie ik ook zo 1,2,3, niet goed komen.
Als SP in een kabinet zit, dan komt de JSF er niet, dat is zeker in welke kabinets-samenstelling dan ook.... maar dan komt er dan nog wel een vervanger ?
Bij een (sterk) links georienteerde coalitie zal Defensie terugbezuinigd worden tot een vredesmacht en is daar wel ruimte voor de zwaar wapentuig ?
Citaat van: Harald op 23/01/2012 | 10:41 uur
Bij een (sterk) links georienteerde coalitie zal Defensie terugbezuinigd worden tot een vredesmacht en is daar wel ruimte voor de zwaar wapentuig ?
Ik snap werkelijk niet dat dit soort beschuldingen vaak bij links neergelegd worden terwijl de daadwerkelijke defensiebezuinigingen in de afgelopen 2 decennia grotendeels hebben plaatsgevonden door kabinetten met de VVD of zelfs MINDEF's van VVD-huize. Ennuh, defensie is zo langzamerhand al omgevormd (bezuinigd tot) een vredesmacht.....
Rusland verkoopt Syrië gevechtsvliegtuigen
Laatste update: 23 januari 2012 11:11 info.
MOSKOU - Rusland heeft 36 trainingsgevechtsvliegtuigen van het type Jak-130 aan Syrië verkocht.
Het contract blijkt al in december getekend en heeft een waarde van ongeveer 425 miljoen euro. Dat heeft de Russische krant Kommersant maandag bericht.
Syrië tekende het contract met het staatsbedrijf Rosoboronexport. De eerste toestellen worden geleverd, zodra een aanbetaling uit Damascus binnen is. Rusland is een bondgenoot van Syrië en verzet zich in de Verenigde Naties tegen sancties tegen het bewind van Bashar al-Assad.
Amerikanen
Vooral de Amerikanen hebben de export van wapens aan Syrië bekritiseerd. Onlangs legde een Russische schip met 60 ton munitie aan in een Syrische haven. De Jak-130 kan met zowel bommen als raketten worden uitgerust. Het Russische ministerie van Defensie heeft 55 toestellen besteld.
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2721778/rusland-verkoopt-syrie-gevechtsvliegtuigen.html
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 23/01/2012 | 10:49 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 23/01/2012 | 10:41 uur
Bij een (sterk) links georienteerde coalitie zal Defensie terugbezuinigd worden tot een vredesmacht en is daar wel ruimte voor de zwaar wapentuig ?
Ik snap werkelijk niet dat dit soort beschuldingen vaak bij links neergelegd worden terwijl de daadwerkelijke defensiebezuinigingen in de afgelopen 2 decennia grotendeels hebben plaatsgevonden door kabinetten met de VVD of zelfs MINDEF's van VVD-huize. Ennuh, defensie is zo langzamerhand al omgevormd (bezuinigd tot) een vredesmacht.....
Om het nog even goed in de herinnering te verankeren; Kamp was de naam van de grote defensiesloper, VVD minister....
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/01/2012 | 11:22 uur
Rusland verkoopt Syrië gevechtsvliegtuigen
Laatste update: 23 januari 2012 11:11 info.
MOSKOU - Rusland heeft 36 trainingsgevechtsvliegtuigen van het type Jak-130 aan Syrië verkocht.
Het contract blijkt al in december getekend en heeft een waarde van ongeveer 425 miljoen euro. Dat heeft de Russische krant Kommersant maandag bericht.
Syrië tekende het contract met het staatsbedrijf Rosoboronexport. De eerste toestellen worden geleverd, zodra een aanbetaling uit Damascus binnen is. Rusland is een bondgenoot van Syrië en verzet zich in de Verenigde Naties tegen sancties tegen het bewind van Bashar al-Assad.
Amerikanen
Vooral de Amerikanen hebben de export van wapens aan Syrië bekritiseerd. Onlangs legde een Russische schip met 60 ton munitie aan in een Syrische haven. De Jak-130 kan met zowel bommen als raketten worden uitgerust. Het Russische ministerie van Defensie heeft 55 toestellen besteld.
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2721778/rusland-verkoopt-syrie-gevechtsvliegtuigen.html
Zijn het er nou 36 of 55 8)
Saudi Typhoon storms ahead
Posted 23 January 2012 · Add Comment
Saudi Arabia has faced challenges introducing the Eurofighter Typhoon into service, not least in establishing local production – which has yet to start. But, as Jon Lake reports, despite this the Royal Saudi Air Force is pushing hard to adopt new capabilities and is believed to have been driving the pace of the development of new air-to-ground capabilities for the tranche 2 aeroplane.
Many analysts believe that the pace of development for the phase 1 enhanced (P1E) programme of the Saudi Arabian Typhoons has been more rapid than might have been expected in the light of budgetary pressures among the four partner nations.
One possible explanation could be Saudi funding. But even if Saudi Arabia is not actually bankrolling P1E, there is no doubt that the kingdom is at least closely following, and perhaps enthusiastically supporting, the latest developments.
In last year's BAE Systems annual report, it was revealed that Saudi Arabia intended that at least the final 24 of the 72 Eurofighter Typhoons it has on order would be delivered with provision to be upgraded to full tranche 3 standards.
The tranche 3 Typhoon will have full air-to-ground capability, including the integration of weapons like the MBDA Storm Shadow cruise missile and the smaller Brimstone PGM, as well as an advanced AESA radar, providing expanded electronic attack capabilities.
The kingdom seems to be placing greater emphasis on Typhoon's air-to-ground capabilities, both for the long-term and in the more immediate future.
Writing in the Washington Post, defence commentator David Ignatius suggested that, as part of a wider more assertive policy, Saudi Arabia was planning to double its armed forces over the next 10 years, while simultaneously modernising many capabilities. Ignatius said the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) would introduce between 450 and 500 new aircraft as part of this process, including 84 F-15SA Silent Eagles and a further 72 Typhoons. Likely timescales mean that any second batch of Typhoons would be delivered to tranche 3 standards.
Previously it had been thought that the Saudis would buy one type or the other and not both, but it now seems that tranche 3 Typhoons will provide the offensive backbone of the air force augmented by new and refurbished F-15s and, indeed, by the surviving Tornados upgraded under the TSP programme.
The advantage of the Typhoon to the Saudis is that it is more likely that specific weapons and defensive capabilities would be cleared and integrated, since Israeli pressure on the USA has historically limited weapons integration on American-built aircraft supplied to Arab air forces.
Prince Sultan's stated intent for Saudi Arabia to have "200-plus" Typhoons in RSAF service by 2015 no longer looks fanciful.
But tranche 3 is still some way off and all 24 of the Typhoons now delivered to Saudi Arabia are from tranche 2. To meet Saudi timescales, these first 24 RSAF Typhoons (18 single-seat and six trainers) were aircraft that were taking shape on the production line for the British Royal Air Force, and that were diverted to meet Saudi requirements.
Production was then to have switched to a new facility built by BAE Systems at King Abdulaziz airbase at Dhahran. Work on this facility (which was to incorporate a Typhoon technical zone for local production) began with the ceremonial laying of a foundation stone by defence and aviation minister Prince Sultan in March 2008. The facility was supposed to have been completed in August 2009, with work beginning in the second quarter of 2010 and the first locally-assembled Typhoon due to be completed in 2011. But the in-kingdom industrial programme (IKIP) failed to materialise.
It now seems likely the remaining 48 Typhoon aircraft ordered by Saudi Arabia will be built in Britain, though an in-kingdom maintenance and upgrade facility may still be established. Production of these 48 aircraft seems to have stalled while contract details are renegotiated. Local production was to have been a vital feature of 'Project Salam' aiming to kick-start an indigenous Saudi aerospace and defence industry with thousands of high-value jobs. Losing this element of the programme is a bitter blow and the kingdom is believed to be working hard to extract concessions from the UK to "make up" for the loss.
It is believed that the Saudis are keen for the remaining aircraft in its order to have the best possible air-to-ground capabilities.
Historically the RSAF has always tended to shadow the RAF and USAF when bringing new types and new capabilities into service. With its UK-supplied combat aircraft, any new functionality has first been cleared and underwritten by the UK MoD and QinetiQ before being released to the RSAF. But Saudi Arabia is becoming more confident and proactive and has aspirations to become its own engineering and release authority.
The RSAF, therefore, started air-to-air gunnery (something the RAF still has not done) and began mounting quantitative risk assessment (QRA) operations with its tranche 2 aircraft before the RAF.
Nor did the Saudis slavishly follow the RAF's choice of air-to-air weapons. Though RSAF Typhoons do use the Raytheon AIM-120C5 AMRAAM for BVR air combat engagements, for short-range use it selected the Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T short-range air-to-air missile, rather than the MBDA ASRAAM favoured by the UK.
But the Saudis were keen to follow (or match) the partner nations in their drive for expanded air-to-ground capabilities on phase 1 enhancement, part A (P1EA). It was reported that when the RSAF was briefed P1EA its representatives simply said: "That's great! When can we have it?"
Arabian Aerospace has learned that the RSAF has now become the first Typhoon operator to start better ground operations using tranche 2 aircraft – which will not gain a full air-to-ground capability until the P1EA is released in mid 2012.
The RSAF's No3 Squadron began air-to-ground operations in December 2011 as part of a phased work-up, which will culminate in the full exploitation of P1EA when it becomes available.
Since the 24 Typhoons delivered to Saudi Arabia all serve with No10 Squadron, the RSAF's Typhoon OEU, and No3 Squadron, the Saudi Typhoon operational conversion/training unit, the early part of the phased work-up is believed to be primarily aimed at building up a cadre of air-to-ground weapons instructors (QWIs) and evaluator pilots, whose skills will be 'grown' as the aircraft's capabilities are expanded.
Because the tranche 2 Typhoon introduced new computer hardware, the decision was taken to adopt a simple software load (known as SRP 5.0/5.1) based on the tranche 1 SRP 4.0 software. The tranche 1 software has since moved on, with SRP 4.2 providing the austere air-to-ground capability, and with SRP 4.3 and a series of post-main development contract software 'drops' providing further refinements and enhancements.
This means that tranche 1 aircraft have features, functionalities and capabilities that tranche 2 aircraft do not. Most obviously the tranche 2 jets do not have the austere air-to-ground capability provided under CP 193 (change proposal 193) and recently combat-proven in Libya.
Tranche 2 aircraft can, of course, carry and drop a range of air-to-ground weapons, including the UK Paveway II laser-guided bomb and GBU-16, but they are not cleared for strafe (using the internal 27mm Mauser cannon in the air-to-surface role), nor do they have a laser designator pod.
However, with support from off-board designators (either ground-based or airborne) the tranche 2 Typhoon can already employ laser-guided bombs and No3 Squadron is expected to work with Tornados carrying the French Damocles laser designation pod. The tranche 2 aircraft, thus, already has an air-to-surface capability that is better than merely 'rudimentary'.
With the anticipated release of P1EA this summer there is little need for any interim air-to-ground capability on the tranche 2 aircraft and, indeed, any such programme could only have delayed P1EA and other important on-going programmes, including P1EB, Meteor integration, and SRP 14.
P1EA is very close to service. Typhoons have now carried out a significant number of full avionic functional releases ('avionics integrated releases') of the Paveway IV, and have used the Litening 3 LDP to guide them. The full end-to-end autonomous designation capability will be tested during the first quarter of 2012.
Service aircrew from the RAF's No17 Squadron have been involved in these trials, and have flown the new software standard extensively in the rig, and in instrumented series production aircraft
http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/saudi-typhoon-storms-ahead.html?utm_source=googleNews&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=news_feed
Oman begins Typhoon purchase formalities
Posted 23 January 2012 · Add Comment
The Sultanate of Oman has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to BAE Systems and the Eurofighter consortium for a number of Typhoon fighters.
It was at Farnborough airshow in 2008 the Omani first expressed an interest in the Eurofighter aircraft and in April 2010 the then UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced a deal had been done. There is no clear confirmation on numbers although it is believed it could be around 20 aircraft in the requirement. It is not yet clear whether these will be refurbished Tranche 1 aircraft from the RAF or include at least 12 Tranche 3 fighters from the current UK order.
At the Dubai Airshow in November last year there was greater speculation that the formal RFP was to be issued but at the same time there were suggestions that the Omani force could be considering American alternatives.
The Eurofighter industry consortium will allow partner nations Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK to sell on some of their production aircraft to third parties, as long as such transactions do not interfere with its own export campaigns with the Typhoon. The Oman aircraft will come from the UK.
The UAE is also looking at purchasing Eurofighters having dropped the French made Rafale in November.
http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/oman-begins-typhoon-purchase-formalities.html?utm_source=googleNews&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=news_feed
New Plan: NGJ To Go Unmanned
Jan 24, 2012
By David Fulghum
NAS Patuxent River, Md.
1 2 3 Next Page >>
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, long touted as the follow-on to the EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, is no longer heir-apparent as the king of nonkinetic warfare.
The often-delayed Lockheed Martin JSF program is being more narrowly focused on its conventional attack role. Jamming is no longer a priority for the stealthy fighter. The airframes expected to carry the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) are conventional-signature unmanned aerial systems and will be followed by stealthy unmanned designs.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/23/AW_01_23_2012_p24-415796.xml&headline=New%20Plan:%20NGJ%20To%20Go%20Unmanned&next=0
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 07:44 uur
New Plan: NGJ To Go Unmanned
Jan 24, 2012
By David Fulghum
NAS Patuxent River, Md.
1 2 3 Next Page >>
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, long touted as the follow-on to the EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, is no longer heir-apparent as the king of nonkinetic warfare.
The often-delayed Lockheed Martin JSF program is being more narrowly focused on its conventional attack role. Jamming is no longer a priority for the stealthy fighter. The airframes expected to carry the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) are conventional-signature unmanned aerial systems and will be followed by stealthy unmanned designs.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/23/AW_01_23_2012_p24-415796.xml&headline=New%20Plan:%20NGJ%20To%20Go%20Unmanned&next=0
De F-35 heeft in de basis geen electronic countermeasures middelen en het is ook niet de bedoeling om deze te integreren in het toestel. Bij intergratie in de buik van het toestel zouden er teveel "dode" hoeken ontstaan, om dit op te lossen moet het toestel gewijzigd worden en dat is natuurlijk geen optie. Je kunt natuurlijk wel de jammers extern ophangen, maar dit gaat ten koste van Stealth.
Voor Counter measures is de F-35 afhankelijk van de EA-18G Growler met external jammers, en in de toekomst de ALQ-99 (NGJ)
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?storyID=news/awst/2010/08/09/AW_08_09_2010_p46-243841.xml&headLine=Will%20F-35%20Customers%20Get%20Advanced%20Jammer?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 07:44 uur
New Plan: NGJ To Go Unmanned
En dat zijn weer minder F35's (al heb ik nog geen idee over welk aantal we het hier hebben)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 08:22 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 07:44 uur
New Plan: NGJ To Go Unmanned
En dat zijn weer minder F35's (al heb ik nog geen idee over welk aantal we het hier hebben)
Ik zie steeds meer een verschuiving van Multi-roll F-35 naar Bomber A-35.
De US Airforce zal voor A2A de F-22 gebruiken met ondersteuning van F-15++ toestellen. Voor A2G, F-35 met ondersteuning van F-16+ toestellen.
(mijns inziens) CAS zal door A-10 gedaan moeten worden samen met de F-16. Daar is een F-35 totaal niet geschikt voor.
Voor mijn gevoel zal de Multi-roll JSF uiteindelijk een bomber A-35 worden
JSF staat voor Joint STRIKE Fighter en niet voor zeg Joint Swing-role Fighter. Al tijdens de concept ontwikkeling werd er sterk naar de A-7E CorsairII gekeken. Daarom noemen sommigen de F-35A dan ook de A-7 van de 21ste eeuw of F-105 Thud II.
Is The Eurofighter Upstaging The F-16 As The World's Most Popular Fighter?
Our Bureau
Wed, Jan 25, 2012 09:11 CET
Oman has become the latest addition in the Middle East to express its interest in acquiring the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Government of Oman has requested BAE Systems to submit a formal bid for the supply of the fighter aircraft. Delivery of the first aircrafts is expected to take place in 36 months, according to a BAE Systems spokesperson.
This statement comes after Saudi Arabia, the Middle East's first Typhoon customer, announced last month that they had made amendments to 'Project Salaam' and, are now expecting 72 fighter jets and not 24 as originally requested.
The United Arab Emirates also made a shocking move in November, 2011 during the Dubai Air Show when it expressed its interest in the Eurofighter. This shift came after France's long running campaign to sell up to 60 Dassault Rafales to the UAE reportedly stalled over price negotiations.
The Eurofighter is steadily becoming the most coveted fighter aircraft among governments. Earlier this week, the Eurofighter was chosen as the fighter aircraft to keep the skies clear during the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
A clear indication that the strike fighter is growing in strength, as well as numbers, including recent order book now totals 707 Eurofighter aircrafts.
The four partner nations of the Eurofighter program have ordered 620 aircrafts: 180 for Germany, 121 for Italy, 87 for Spain and 232 for the UK. Austria placed an order of 15 aircrafts; the first two were delivered in July 2007.
In addition, Eurofighter has come tantalizingly close to winning a large contract for 126 plus options for 72 fighters in India. It has been shortlisted along with Dassault's Rafale in a final face-off, the results of which are expected within the next 1-2 months.
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?catid=3&id=6491&h=%20Eurofighter%20Upstaging%20F-16%20%20World%E2%80%99s%20Most%20Popular%20Fighter
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 12:01 uur
Is The Eurofighter Upstaging The F-16 As The World's Most Popular Fighter?
Met een groter aantal EF's wordt (wellicht) de aanschafprijs ook meer aantrekkelijk.
Citaat van: dudge op 25/01/2012 | 12:39 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 12:02 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 12:01 uur
Is The Eurofighter Upstaging The F-16 As The World's Most Popular Fighter?
Met een groter aantal EF's wordt (wellicht) de aanschafprijs ook meer aantrekkelijk.
vwb aanschafprijs weet ik het niet, maar nieuwe technologieën kunnen er wel sneller in verwerkt worden.
In ieder geval wordt het platform er sterker van.
Ik ga er voor het gemak van uit dat nieuwe klanten de EF afnemen vanaf tranche3 en dat van hieruit verder wordt doorontwikkelt.
Als we dan toch voor een verdieping en verbreding gaan in de Europese samenwerking....
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 12:48 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 25/01/2012 | 12:39 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 12:02 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/01/2012 | 12:01 uur
Is The Eurofighter Upstaging The F-16 As The World's Most Popular Fighter?
Met een groter aantal EF's wordt (wellicht) de aanschafprijs ook meer aantrekkelijk.
vwb aanschafprijs weet ik het niet, maar nieuwe technologieën kunnen er wel sneller in verwerkt worden.
In ieder geval wordt het platform er sterker van.
Ik ga er voor het gemak van uit dat nieuwe klanten de EF afnemen vanaf tranche3 en dat van hieruit verder wordt doorontwikkelt.
Als we dan toch voor een verdieping en verbreding gaan in de Europese samenwerking....
Vanaf Tranche 3? Door ontwikkelde varianten hebben op de export markt alleen een kans, als de thuis markt deze variant als eerste in dienst neemt. En die kans is op zijn optimistisch niet erg groot, waarschijnlijk nihil. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan die 37 tot Mirage 2000-5 opgewaardeerde kisten die Frankrijk moest kopen, om deze variant te kunnen exporteren.
Pentagon zet mes in defensie
JSF
De bezuiniging beëindigt of beperkt tientallen programma's. Dat treft onder meer het Global Hawk voor onbemande vluchten op grote hoogte, evenals het grootste wapenprogramma: de F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
De VS kopen 179 JSF's minder en stellen een deel van de aankopen uit.
http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2723929/pentagon-zet-mes-in-defensie.html
Ben benieuwd hoe Hillen die verlaging uit gaat leggen. Zal vast wel weer een kamervraag komen, wat dit precies qua kosten voor NL betekent.
LM shows the VIDEO of the first night flight of F-35A airplane
Fort Worth, Usa - The aircraft, piloted by LM Test Pilot Mark Ward, in a CTOL variant
(WAPA) - With some days of delay compared to the news (see for details AVIONEWS), Lockheed Martin has sent the video of the first night flight of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II.
The F-35 Lightning II is a single-seat, single-engine, fifth generation multi-role fighter under development to perform ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defense missions with stealth capability.
There are three versions of the F-35; one is a conventional takeoff and landing variant, the second is a short take off and vertical-landing variant, and the third is a carrier-based variant. Matching the Boeing X-32 in the relative tender, it was the winner of the tender for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program for researching of an airplane that could replace different models of the USAF, of US Navy and US Marine Corps.
Initially it was predicted that about 80% of the parts was common among the various versions, but then with the program development it has been reached this percentage including also specific parts for every version, but subject to a common manufacturing. In any case, all electronics on board and part of the software will be practically equal.
(Avionews)
(006)
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1137183&pagina_chiamante=index.php
Citaat van: Avionews op 25/01/2012 | 18:10 uur
LM shows the VIDEO of the first night flight of F-35A airplane
Mooie beelden, zeker met AB.
Citaat van: dudge op 25/01/2012 | 16:12 uur
Hieruit maak ik op dat de blok20/tranche 3A er gewoon gaat komen, maar de vraag vooral zit bij de Tranche3B/blok25.
Daarnaast bestaat er gewoon de mogelijkheid om de geplande verbeteringen voor blok25 later alsnog in te voeren op de blok20 toestellen, die immers beide tot tranche3 behoren.
(al vond ik bovenstaand artikel erg verhelderend, ik weet niet zeker of mijn bovenstaande stelling nu klopt)
De Tranche 3A / block 20 komt er, maar in ieder geval het VK en Duitsland hebben al aangegeven dat deze Tranche voor hun luchtmachten ook de laatste orders betekenen. In Tranche 3B staan / stonden voor het VK 0Typhoons gepland en voor Duitsland 37 stuks. Het VK is van plan om haar 53 Tranche 1 air-to-air only al tussen 2015 en 2019 uit te faseren.
Opwaardering naar bijvoorbeeld Tranche 3A blk 20 is veel te duur. De RAF gaat uiteindelijk met een vloot van totaal 107 Typhoons opereren.
Gezien de emorme pecunia schaarste is het nog maar de vraag of Italië en Spanje respectievelijk hun 25 en 14 Tranche 3B Typhoons gaan afnemen. Eind jaren 90, begin deze eeuw waren er grootse plannen voor Typhoons met veel krachtiger motoren van respectievelijk 23.000 pond te introduceren vanaf 2010 en een variant met 27.000 pond stuwkracht te introduceren vanaf 2015. Ook zou er snel een AESA radar voor de Typhoon beschikbaar komen, welke nu gepland staat voor introductie in productie kisten in 2015.
Daarnaast heeft de Typhoon Tranche 2 een (nog) vrij beperkte lucht-grond vaardigheid. Daarom wordt de Typhoon ook niet ingezet boven Afghanistan. Inzet van Typhoons boven Libië was in mijn ogen 'window dressing' van de Typhoon lucht-grond vaardigheden ten bate van eventuele export orders.
Citaat van: Poleme op 25/01/2012 | 19:06 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 25/01/2012 | 16:12 uur
Hieruit maak ik op dat de blok20/tranche 3A er gewoon gaat komen, maar de vraag vooral zit bij de Tranche3B/blok25.
Daarnaast bestaat er gewoon de mogelijkheid om de geplande verbeteringen voor blok25 later alsnog in te voeren op de blok20 toestellen, die immers beide tot tranche3 behoren.
(al vond ik bovenstaand artikel erg verhelderend, ik weet niet zeker of mijn bovenstaande stelling nu klopt)
De Tranche 3A / block 20 komt er, maar in ieder geval het VK en Duitsland hebben al aangegeven dat deze Tranche voor hun luchtmachten ook de laatste orders betekenen. In Tranche 3B staan / stonden voor het VK 0Typhoons gepland en voor Duitsland 37 stuks. Het VK is van plan om haar 53 Tranche 1 air-to-air only al tussen 2015 en 2019 uit te faseren.
Opwaardering naar bijvoorbeeld Tranche 3A blk 20 is veel te duur. De RAF gaat uiteindelijk met een vloot van totaal 107 Typhoons opereren.
Gezien de emorme pecunia schaarste is het nog maar de vraag of Italië en Spanje respectievelijk hun 25 en 14 Tranche 3B Typhoons gaan afnemen. Eind jaren 90, begin deze eeuw waren er grootse plannen voor Typhoons met veel krachtiger motoren van respectievelijk 23.000 pond te introduceren vanaf 2010 en een variant met 27.000 pond stuwkracht te introduceren vanaf 2015. Ook zou er snel een AESA radar voor de Typhoon beschikbaar komen, welke nu gepland staat voor introductie in productie kisten in 2015.
Daarnaast heeft de Typhoon Tranche 2 een (nog) vrij beperkte lucht-grond vaardigheid. Daarom wordt de Typhoon ook niet ingezet boven Afghanistan. Inzet van Typhoons boven Libië was in mijn ogen 'window dressing' van de Typhoon lucht-grond vaardigheden ten bate van eventuele export orders.
Wellicht bieden (potentiële) export orders (een paar honderd) in het Midden Oosten en India voldoende voedingsbodem om de Typhoon verder door te ontwikkelen zodat deze kist de komende 30 jaar mee kan.
Joint Strike Fighter delays
The Royal Navy may have to buy French fighter jets for Britain's new aircraft carrier amid growing doubts over the American-designed Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior officer has warned.
Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, who retires as Commander-in-Chief Fleet in March, told industrialists that there was mounting concern within the Ministry of Defence about the escalating costs and delays to the JSF programme.
In a detailed note of his speech to the ADS Maritime Interest Group, seen by The Times, Admiral Soar warned that US defence spending cuts could jeopardise the deal. He was quoted as saying that Britain might do better to invest in what he called an "interim aircraft capability." The carrier is due to be ready in 2019 but Britain might not acquire the JSF until a decade later, Admiral Soar suggested.
http://www.dofonline.co.uk/content/view/5992/152/
Hungary extends Gripen lease by ten years
Written by defenceWeb Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:44
The Hungarian government has extended the lease of its 14 Gripen fighter jets for another ten years, to 2026.
The lease was approved by Sweden last week, the daily Nepszabadsag reports. Sofia Karlberg, an official at the Swedish Defence and Security Export Agency, confirmed the lease extension but would not disclose any more information.
Hungarian defence minister Csaba Hende said earlier this month that the extension is in the national interest because there is no realistic alternative solution and that the extension through 2026 will save the Hungarian state 63 billion forints (US$270 million).
The Gripen lease costs Hungary 30 billion forints (US$130 million) a year while training for the aircraft costs another 2 billion forints (US$8.7 million) a year, according to the Budapest Business Journal.
In parallel to the lease contract, Gripen International has committed to provide offset and industrial cooperation to a value of 110% of the agreement value, which includes investments equalling 32% of the agreement's value.
The Hungarian Air Force is leasing 14 ex-Swedish Air Force aircraft, including two two-seaters. The lease agreement was signed in February 2003 and Hungary became the first NATO member state to operate the Gripen when it received the first five aircraft in March 2006. Final deliveries took place in December 2007.
Saab has a sold its Gripen to Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary and South Africa.
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22926:hungary-extends-gripen-lease-by-ten-years&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107
US navy besteld extra F-18E/F
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $687,484,033 ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year procurement contract (N00019-09-C-0019) for 14 additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A-18E aircraft and one additional fiscal 2012, Lot 36, F/A-18F aircraft contained in the F/A-18 multi-year III production contract.
Pursuant to the variation in quantity clause, this procurement will bring the number of F/A-18E aircraft on this contract from 55 to 69, and the F/A-18F from 20 to 21.
Work is expected to be completed in October 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/132212/boeing-wins-extra-%24687m-as-us-navy-increases-f_18e-order.html
Citaat van: Harald op 26/01/2012 | 17:18 uur
US navy besteld extra F-18E/F
Het zal mij benieuwen, deze 15 extra F18E gaan ten koste van de F35's, de vraag is nu: zijn deze verrekent met de 179 JSF's die (tot heden) van het totale Amerikaanse progamma afgaan of kunnen we deze optellen zodat de teller komt te staan op 194 minder JSF's ?
Sweden To Examine $5B Gripen Upgrade Proposal
Jan. 26, 2012 - 02:48PM
By GERARD O'DWYER
HELSINKI — Sweden's government is expected to examine in the spring an Armed Forces Command (AFC) proposal covering a possible $5 billion upgrade for the Air Force's 100 JAS Gripen multirole fighters.
The Ministry of Defense (MoD) has sought a cost appraisal from Saab, although the company says that it has not yet submitted a formal costing to the government.
The Gripen upgrade proposal was contained in the AFC's proposition to the government in March 2011. This outlined how Sweden's Air Force and air defenses could best be developed after 2020. The AFC's submission noted that a decision on the Gripens was needed in order to plan for either upgrading or replacing the aging aircraft, adding that funding for a new project should begin to be incorporated into the annual defense budget no later than 2015.
The AFC is proposing to upgrade and develop an E/F version of the Gripen to ensure the fighter maintains its technological development capability and continues to operate up to 2040, and possibly beyond.
Avionics, sensors and radar will form a key part of any upgrade, as will improving the aircraft's weapons-carrying capability and fuel tank capacity. Some 20 possible new configurations for a Gripen E/F version are being examined by Saab, the AFC and FMV, Sweden's defense materials central procurement agency.
The upgrade proposal is regarded as a more cost-efficient option than funding a new fighter replacement program. The AFC advocates that the Air Force's stock of C/D version Gripens be upgraded on a phased basis to spread the total cost over a five- to 10-year budgetary period.
The AFC views the impending government decision, which it anticipates will be made in March, as the most critical funding issue facing Swedish defense. A significant factor will be the AFC's improved working relationship with government. This was underlined in 2011 when the MoD approved $900 million in new funding to strengthen the attack and tactical helicopter capability of the Air Force and Army by acquiring 15 Sikorsky Black Hawks.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120126/DEFREG01/301260010/Sweden-Examine-5B-Gripen-Upgrade-Proposal?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Struggling in US, F-35 fighter pushes sales abroad
By ERIC TALMADGE — Associated Press
Posted: 1:54am on Jan 27, 2012; Modified: 2:29am on Jan 27, 2012
TOKYO — Detractors say the F-35 stealth fighter, the costliest military plane ever, is destined to go down as one of the biggest follies in aviation history. But it may have found a savior: deep-pocketed U.S. allies hungry to add its super high-tech capabilities to their arsenal.
The program marked a major success last month when Japan chose it over the Boeing F/A-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon as a replacement for 42 aircraft in its aging air force. It was the F-35's first victory in an open-bidding competition, though countries from Britain to Israel previously made commitments and others are expected to follow.
Manufacturer Lockheed Martin also is looking to bring F-35s to South Korea in a deal that could be Seoul's biggest single defense outlay ever - 60 top-of-the-line fighters worth more than $7 billion. A decision could come as soon as October.
In the U.S., however, the stealth jet has been called a boondoggle. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, has slammed the F-35 as a "scandal and a tragedy," a "train wreck" and "incredibly expensive."
With U.S. defense budget cuts looming and many critics of the program still unconvinced, foreign support is a make-or-break issue for the program, which has been described as too big to fail. It could become the cornerstone of global air strategy for the next few decades, or a trillion-dollar bust.
"The U.S. fighter jet industry has all of its eggs in this one basket," said Richard Bitzinger, a security expert at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. So many countries have bought into the program, he said, there is now no realistic choice but to forge ahead with it.
"It would be almost impossible for the U.S. to cancel the F-35, since the repercussions would be global," he said.
The F-35 is the world's only "fifth generation" fighter jet, combining state-of-the art stealth technology with highly advanced avionics and maneuverability. The first F-35 flew in 2006, and 42 have been produced so far. China and Russia are working on rival - and some experts say superior - aircraft.
About 130,000 people in 47 states and Puerto Rico have jobs related to the project. The only states without F-35 work are Hawaii, North Dakota and Wyoming.
"Simply put, there is no alternative to the F-35 program. It must succeed," Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said in September.
The Pentagon envisions buying 2,443 F-35s for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, but some members of Congress and Department of Defense officials are balking at the price tag, which has jumped from $233 billion to $385 billion. Some estimates suggest it could top out at $1 trillion over 50 years, making it the most expensive program in military history.
In frustration over cost overruns, Congress added a requirement that Lockheed Martin cover extra costs on future F-35 purchases to the defense bill it passed last month.
"The delays and cost increases that F-35 has suffered have put it under substantial political pressure in Washington, so a win like the Japan program is a major boost," said James Hardy, Asia Pacific specialist with IHS Jane's in London.
Success rides heavily on foreign investment because the more F-35s are produced, the cheaper each jet is to build and maintain.
Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney and BAE Systems, has been careful to bring in international partners. The fighter is being developed with support from Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Turkey, Australia and Canada.
Among the leading international partners, the U.K. is planning to buy 138 F-35s, Italy 131 and Canada 65. Australia has ordered 14 and has plans to buy as many as 100 for 16 billion Australian dollars ($17 billion).
The Israeli government selected the F-35A as its air force's next generation aircraft in 2010 - making it the first country to receive the F-35 through the U.S. government's Foreign Military Sales process.
Singapore also has said it will buy F-35, although it hasn't set numbers yet, and there may be longer-term interest from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil and India, said Hardy, of IHS Jane's.
The wide range of buyers is in contrast to Lockheed Martin's last stealth fighter, the now discontinued F-22 "Raptor." It was hailed as a wonder of technology but failed in large part because Congress deemed it too sensitive to sell even to Washington's closest allies.
Narushige Michishita, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies who has advised the Japanese government on defense issues, said he thinks the F-35 is Japan's best option.
"If this was about a Cold War-type competition, then the F-22 would have been better. But if this is a long-term peacetime competition, you need numbers and presence, and close coordination among allies," Michishita said.
But defense analyst Carlo Kopp of the private Air Power Australia think tank said he thinks it was a mistake for his country and others to buy in. He said the F-35 program should have been canceled years ago and that the policy of pushing forward with it at any cost only threatens to create a budgetary sinkhole that would weaken the defenses of the U.S. and its allies.
"It will never become a viable combat aircraft due to cumulative poor choices made early in the design, and later Band-Aid fixes," Kopp said.
Further cost increases could prompt foreign buyers to cut their orders, which would put even more pressure on Lockheed Martin. Other problems also continue to trouble its international partners:
- Concerns about whether Lockheed will be able to deliver on time prompted Australia to caution that it won't decide until later this year whether to buy any more than the 14 ordered so far.
- Structural glitches have emerged that compromise the F-35's ability to land on aircraft carriers. That's a big issue for Britain, where the plane is slated to replace its carrier-friendly Harrier jets by 2020. British media have also reported that the F-35 can't fire British air-to-air missiles.
- Canada and Norway may have difficulty operating the F-35 on icy runways. The plane's single-engine design - unlike the twin-engine F-22 or F-15 - could also be an issue. If the engine goes out, planes and pilots in the Arctic could be lost.
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/01/27/3068627/struggling-in-us-f-35-fighter.html#storylink=cpy
Boeing makes big push with F-15 Silent Eagle tests for South Korea
By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC
Boeing is poised to launch a new series of ground, windtunnel and flight tests on several key features of the F-15 Silent Eagle proposed for South Korea's competitive F-X III contract.
Windtunnel tests will start by March or April on a scale model of the F-15SE with conformal weapons bays, said Howard Berry, Boeing vice-president for sales. The weapons bays, which are modified conformal fuel tanks, allow the F-15 to store weapons internally and lower the aircraft's profile to radars.
Flight testing will begin late in the fourth quarter of 2012 or early next year of an "advanced international F-15", Berry said. The new-build test aircraft will feature the cockpit systems, digital electronic warfare system and sensors unveiled with the Silent Eagle concept in March 2009 (below).
Boeing will also start windtunnel tests to determine the aerodynamic performance of various angles for the Silent Eagle's proposed canted vertical tails, Berry said.
The company's original concept featured tails canted at 15º as a stealth technique. The canted tails allow the aircraft to bank up to 15º on either side without presenting a 90º angle to airborne radars.
As an unexpected bonus, the canted tails also slightly improved the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft, Boeing said.
The forthcoming tests are aimed at preparing the Silent Eagle to be ready to enter service in 2016 for South Korea.
Seoul is expected to release a request for proposals for the F-X III requirement in the near future. A contract award for up to 62 aircraft is expected in October. Boeing is likely to face competition from the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-makes-big-push-with-f-15-silent-eagle-tests-for-south-korea-367495/
[Exclusive] Boeing may give up offering stealthy jet
Posted on woensdag 25 januari 2012 14:03:35 by sukhoi-30mki
Little progress made in weapons bay development
By Lee Tae-hoon
Industry insiders raised questions Wednesday about whether U.S. aerospace giant Boeing will fulfill its pledge to offer F-15 Silent Eagles (F-15 SEs) with an internal weapons bay and twin canted tails, two of the core technologies for stealth jets, to Seoul.
A source familiar with Boeing's plan to modify its F-15s said little progress has been made in the making of the F-15SE, especially in the development of its conformal weapons bay (CWB), which allows the aircraft to carry weapons internally.
"Only 10 percent of work has been completed for the research and development of the F-15SE's conformal weapons bay," the informed industry source said.
The Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has been carrying out research and development of the F-15 SE's internal weapons bay, a crucial stealth feature, since signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Boeing in 2010.
The CWB, a common characteristic of aircraft with low visibility, was a compulsory requirement to enter Korea's FX-III bid, the country's third and last phase of a program to procure advanced jets.
Seoul, however, has decided to remove the prerequisite to allow more companies to enter the competition, according to Noh Dae-lae, the commissioner of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA).
Boeing, which has sold 61 F-15Ks to Korea since 2002, pledged to develop the F-15SE for international customers, including Seoul, by upgrading its F-15 Strike Eagle upon unveiling its concept for the semi-stealth aircraft in March 2009.
Nevertheless, a Boeing official acknowledged that his company has yet to determine whether to push the development of 15-degree outward-canted V-tails, which it proposed to include when the company first announced the F-15SE.
"To my understanding, Boeing has yet to decide whether to develop canted vertical tails for the sales of its new jets to Korea," the official said.
Boeing sought to cant the vertical tails of the F-15 outward to reduce the combat aircraft's radar signature and increase aerodynamic efficiency, but announced it would suspend the development of the new feature in 2010.
Other industry officials noted that it will be physically impossible for Boeing to complete the development of the CWB and canted tails by the end of October this year when Seoul plans to finalize the deal after three to four months of evaluations and negotiations. "Boeing will most likely change their offer. They won't offer the Silent Eagle," a senior official of Lockheed Martin, which is competing with Boeing and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) for the FX-III bid, said asking for anonymity.
"They are going to offer the F-15K because that's the only plane they can deliver by 2016."
DAPA officials warned that Boeing may enter the FX-III race after minor upgrades to the F-15K, such as installing Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars, but the airplane's stealth capability remains a crucial factor in deciding which new fighter jets will be purchased.
"Boeing may compete in the FX-III race without having to complete its development of the CWB or canted vertical tails, but it should bear in mind that Korea is eyeing to acquire advanced jets, rather than outdated ones," a senior DAPA official said.
DAPA is expected to issue a request for proposal on Jan. 30 without the requirements of the conformal weapons bay and a specific target value for the radar cross section of the plane.
http://fishinghideaway.com/forums/Boeing-YC-14.html
Talks To Sell Typhoons to Oman and Saudi Arabia Continue
AIN Defense Perspective » January 27, 2012
by Chris Pocock
January 27, 2012, 9:40 AM
Recent statements from the British government and BAE Systems have clarified the status of negotiations to sell Eurofighter Typhoons to Oman and Saudi Arabia. Oman has now issued a formal RFP. Having taken delivery of 24 aircraft from BAE's Warton assembly line, the Saudis are still negotiating the price and configuration of 48 more, as well as assembly and maintenance arrangements.
Two years ago, the Omani deal seemed to have been agreed. Then-British prime minister Gordon Brown suggested as much in public, and an aircraft in final assembly at Warton was allocated to Oman. But a British industry source told AIN that Oman would not buy the Typhoons sans an AESA radar. Oman has since requested a second batch of F-16s from the U.S., although the sale has not yet been confirmed. The British government said last week that the RFP represents an important step toward a contract, and that a sale of Typhoons would "bring wider economic, training and education benefits to Oman."
Earlier this month, BAE Systems acknowledged that the hiatus in the Al Salam sale to Saudi Arabia would reduce the company's 2011 earnings from previous predictions. But it said it had made "good progress" in recent discussions "on all items except the price escalation." Meanwhile, as AIN has previously reported, Typhoon subassemblies allocated to Saudi Arabia have gone into storage at Warton.
It seems that both Oman and Saudi Arabia are holding out for Tranche 3 standard Typhoons, with more extensive weapons integration as well as the AESA radar. India has been offered such enhancements to meet its 126-aircraft MMRCA requirement. That country's long-awaited choice between the four-nation jet and the all-French Rafale could be announced next week.
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-01-27/talks-sell-typhoons-oman-and-saudi-arabia-continue
Fewer F35s coming to Cherry Point
January 28, 2012 5:25 PM
By Drew C. Wilson
Havelock News
The Deputy Commandant for Aviation of the Marine Corps told a gathering celebrating a century of Marine aviation in Havelock that fewer F-35B Joint Strike Fighters would be coming to Cherry Point than earlier announced.
Speaking before more than 500 assembled for an annual gala for the Eastern Carolina Aviation Heritage Foundation at the Havelock Tourist and Event Center, Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling said Cherry Point may receive six or maybe seven squadrons of Joint Strike Fighters beginning in 2021 or 2022.
An Environmental Impact Statement in May 2010 favored eight squadrons of the new Marine Corps jet at Cherry Point beginning in 2020.
Robling pointed to budgetary and economic conditions as well as the needs of the Marine Corps for the changes.
"In the end, we'll have six squadrons of JSF here at Cherry Point. It could be seven," he said. "We could have a reserve squadron. We haven't made that decision yet. We'll have two reserve squadrons of JSF, hopefully one at either Texas or on the West Coast. What I'd like to do is put one right here, and so obviously that's a few years down the road. That squadron would probably not even transition until fiscal year '28. We've got quite a ways down the road to work on it."
Robling also pointed out that economic conditions and Marine Corps needs could change again in the next several years.
The F-35B is a short takeoff and vertical landing jet similar to the AV-8B Harrier it is expected to replace. The jet is designed to also replace Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets and EA-6B Prowlers. Robling said Cherry Point's Prowler squadrons would begin to deactivate beginning in 2016 through 2019, with the Navy taking over the electronic warfare mission until the Marine Corps F-35Bs take over.
If that plan is followed, Cherry Point would lose four squadrons of jets before the first F-35B arrives.
Robling pointed out the slow progress of the F-35B when former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates put it on probation last year.
"It went on probation because in 2010 it wasn't doing very well," he said. "It was way behind in its test points. It had hardly flown any of its test points. We had five major engineering problems with the aircraft that hadn't been solved so the Secretary of Defense put it on probation."
However, current secretary Leon Panetta took the jet off probation earlier this month.
"So all of 2011, we caught up all of 2010's test points," Robling said. "We are 100 over the test point we are supposed to have in 2011 and we have engineering fixes for every one of those prior problems and they will begin going into production of those aircraft pretty soon.
"The secretary just recently took it off probation, and we are very happy for him to do that but that doesn't mean our work is over. We have a lot of work to do on all three versions."
Robling stressed the importance of the jet, which has critics who cite its projected cost of $150 million and developmental problems and also question its need.
"If you are going to fight a fifth-generation threat, which we have, then you need a fifth generation aircraft to do it," he said.
Robling said he would not address specifics of the Marine Corps budget but did mention Thursday's announcement of overall cuts of $489 billion for the entire Defense Department in the next 10 years.
"We took some cuts, but what I can tell you is we have the absolute best, most capable Marine Corps that the nation could afford," Robling said.
He said the Corps constantly looks at reducing costs, but warned of deep cuts.
"We're about as penny-pinching an outfit as you can get," he said. "We're also very paranoid, but paranoia is good and we're proud of that and so should you. This is a very tough time for our nation. We just have to make sure that we don't make cuts so deeply that we become a hollow force."
Part of Thursday's announcement included a Base Realignment and Closure process that could happen as early as 2013. Robling said Cherry Point and the Fleet Readiness Center East repair and maintenance facility are important to the military, but offered words of warning.
"Are you in any danger? Yes, you are always in danger," he said. "When you look at the budgets across the military services, they are always looking at how they can be more efficient. If I were to guess, I would say you are going to be alright, but in every BRAC you could in trouble.
"Talk to you congressmen. Tell them how important it is to have Cherry Point here. I'll do the same with the Secretary of Defense and up on Capitol Hill. Gov. (Beverly) Perdue recently wrote a letter to the president talking about how important the JSF aircraft was to our nation and for Cherry Point and how important FRC East was. Those types of letters are very, very useful for both congressmen up on the Hill and for the president and the Secretary of Defense."
http://www.havenews.com/news/marine-9323-cherry-point.html
Delays, cost overruns have long plagued Joint Strike Fighter jet
By JAMES ROSEN
McClatchy-Tribune News Service
Published Saturday, January 28, 2012
Read more here: http://www.islandpacket.com/2012/01/28/1944894/delays-cost-overruns-have-long.html#storylink=cpy
DAY IN PICS
28 Jan, 2012, 01.54PM IST,
F-35: Biggest folly in US aviation history
Via de link doorklikken naar diverse tekst veldjes.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/pictures/videos/pictures/failure-in-us-costliest-military-plane-f-35-pushes-sales-abroad/f-35-biggest-folly-in-us-aviation-history/articleshowpics/11662331.cms
Frankrijk doet toch nog een poging in Zwitserland, ze bieden nu 18 Rafales voor een lager bedrag dan 22 Gripens hierbij de claim dat je 3 Rafales nog hebt voor het werk wat 5 Gripens kunnen verzetten.
Zie het Duitstalige artikel.
Gripen gegen Rafale
29. Januar 2012 05:18; Akt: 29.01.2012 05:18 Print
.
Franzosen legen neues Kampfjet-Angebot vor
Zwei Monate nachdem sich der Bundesrat für den Kauf von Gripen-Flugzeugen entschieden hat, legt der Rafale-Hersteller ein besseres Angebot vor. Rafale-Jets gelten den Gripen-Fliegern als überlegen.
http://www.20min.ch/news/schweiz/story/Franzosen-legen-neues-Kampfjet-Angebot-vor-11740440
Citaat van: www.20min.ch op 29/01/2012 | 09:31 uur
hierbij de claim dat je 3 Rafales nog hebt voor het werk wat 5 Gripens kunnen verzetten.
Met mijn lekenverstand kwalificeer ik dit als een vergezocht argument. Wellicht dat deze vlieger opgaat als we praten over een groepsopdracht, maar natuurlijk kun je met 5 vliegtuigen "overall" meer doen en ben je flexibeler dan met 3.
Russia pulls out of Korea fighter project
Sweden mulls taking part in FX-III race with Gripen
By Lee Tae-hoon
Russia will not enter Korea's advanced jet acquisition project as none of its aircraft manufacturers including Sukhoi expressed their intent to join the heated competition, officials here said.
The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) listed Sukhoi's T-50 PAK-FA in July last year as one of the four contenders to have expressed an interest in joining the open bidding worth 8.29 trillion won ($7.3 billion) along with Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS).
``No Russian firm submitted an application to attend the program's explanatory session, which was a prerequisite to participate by the Friday registration deadline," Lt. Col. Kim Jeong-min of DAPA said.
Kim noted that a representative from Swedish company Saab, which has been searching for additional export orders for its Gripen multirole fighters, successfully filed an application for the mandatory session along with Boeing, Lockheed Martine and EADS.
"It is too early to tell whether Saab is serious about joining the race, or the European company will be attending the session out of curiosity and have a peek at Korea's demands," a senior DAPA official said.
``What appears certain is that the Swedish firm's aircraft, including the Gripen, does not meet many of the Air Force's requirements."
DAPA announced that only those participating in the explanatory session slated for today will be eligible to participate in the FX-III, the third and final phase of the multi-billion dollar fighter jet procurement program.
The state-run arms procurement agency made it clear that the request for proposal (RFP) detailing the FX-III requirements will only be distributed to participants of the explanatory session.
Officials at the Trade Representation of the Russian Federation in Korea acknowledged that Sukhoi has pulled out of the race, considering that the aircraft manufacturer had not sought Moscow's approval, nor his agency's help to participate in the fighter bid.
"Both the Russian government and its trade delegations here have yet to receive any proposal from any Russian aviation companies," a senior trade representative from Russia said.
Sukhoi lost in the FX-I bid, the first phase of Korea's fighter program in the early 2000s, due largely to concerns over the interoperability of its proposed SU-35 fighters with the Air Force's existing fleet of American aircraft.
The Russian aerospace firm refrained from making any official comment over the possibility of competing in the FX-III, through which Korea wants to purchase 60 high-end aircraft with stealth capability in October this year.
Meanwhile, Shin Myung-ho, a representative from Saab, confirmed his company has yet to make a decision on whether to compete with the two U.S. defense giants and the European consortium.
"To my understanding, Saab will discuss possible participation in FX-III after receiving the RFP," he said. "It will, however, take a while before Saab makes any official announcement about its next move on Korea's jet acquisition bid."
Korea has purchased 60 F-15s from Boeing, which won both the FX-I and II projects in 2002 and 2008.
Seoul plans to receive proposals from the four possible bidders, for the FX-III project by June 18 and carry out testing and evaluations until September before selecting the winner in October.
Seoul eliminated two key compulsory requirements initially set for FX-III in an attempt to allow more companies to enter the competition for the nation's largest-ever arms deal.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/01/113_103661.html
Extra Info :
Switzerland, Dassault strikes back
The Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung reveals today that Dassault Aviation has made a new offer to Switzerland for 18 Rafale on January 19, 2012.
The price would be CHF 2.7 billions (€2.2 billions) some CHF 400 millions (€331.7 millions) cheaper than the 22 Gripen offered by Sweeden.
With this offer, each Rafale would be only 6 % more expensive than a Gripen, which is a real bargain considering the additionnal capabilities of the the French fighter (range, load):
- Gripen offer : CHF 3.1 billions for 22 jets or CHF 141 millions per aircraft
- Rafale offer : CHF 2.7 billions for 18 jets or CHF 150 millions per aircraft
Indeed, Dassault claims that a fleet of 18 Rafale has equivalent efficiency as 22 Gripen, a fact confirmed by a high ranked officer of the Swiss army interviewed by the Newspaper, who states that 3 Rafale/Eurofighters were able to fulfill the same missions as 5 Gripen. Besides, SonntagsZeitung reports that the French offer would also includes unlimited access to French Air Bases, as well as the possibility to use French simulators, training areas ower the Mediterranean sea and French logistic during international exercises.
Le Matin Newspaper reports that the new French offer will be for a Rafale with the same avionic/sensor suite, air defense capabilities and offset package but with fewer Air to Ground options (No pylons for heavy bombs for example) in order to better match Switzerland needs.
On Tuesday January 24, The Security committee of the National council had decided to check that the selection procedure was devoid of any irregularities or cheating after they received a letter signed by a mysterious "groupe pour une armee credible et integre" (Group for an honest and credible army) revealing that several parameters of the evaluation would have been changed in order to favor the Gripen (some even claim that without those "corrections" the Gripen wouldn't have passed some of the minimum thresholds set by the Air Force). Eventually, the informations leaked by the letter were juged serious enough by the security committee to ask for an investigation.
www.sonntagszeitung.ch
www.challenges.fr
www.lematin.ch
www.tdg.ch (Dassault New offer to Switzerland)
www.tdg.ch (possible investigation on Gripen selection iregularities)
also read :
Federal Council chooses the Gripen
Armasuisse ranks the Rafale first
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/
British MoD considering Rafale, F/A-18E waiting for the F-35
Due to the recent tail hook issues encontered by Lockheed Martin during the first carrier landing trials of the F-35C, the British Ministry of Defense starts to think about a possible plan B if the american aircraft were to be delayed. The problem seems quite serious as it could lead to a major redesign of the rear fuselage of the plane and thus to significant additional costs and delay.
[.......]
"According to The Times, Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, the current commander-in-chief fleet, said concerns were growing about rising costs and delays in the JSF programme, something now worsened by order cuts from the US.
Soar, who was addressing defence companies at the ADS Maritime Interest Group, reportedly said the UK might not receive the $100m per piece F-35 jets until a decade after the delivery of the carrier, currently set for 2019.
He was said to be considering the French Dassault Rafale and the US F-18 Super Hornet to give Britain an "interim aircraft capability".
Soar indicated that the JSF would be a major talking point at the next strategic defence review in 2015."
sources :
www.defencemanagement.com
www.bloomberg.com
www.navytimes.com
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/
Australia reviews timetable for buying 12 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters amid ballooning costs
By Associated Press, Monday, January 30, 5:08 AM
CANBERRA, Australia — Australia is reviewing its timetable for buying 12 troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the defense minister said Monday after the United States announced a rethink of its purchase schedule for the futuristic warplanes.
Australia is a funding partner in developing the JSF, which the U.S. Defense Department describes as the largest fighter aircraft program in history. The Lockheed Martin Corp. JSF program has been troubled by repeated blowouts in cost as well as delivery schedules.
Most of the funding for the fighter comes from the United States, while Canada, Turkey, Britain, Italy, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands are also funding partners.
Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith said Monday that Canberra is only contractually obligated to take delivery of two of the warplanes. They will be based in the United States and be available from 2014 for training Australian pilots.
Smith said Australia is reconsidering its schedule of buying another 12 during the following three years.
"We will now give consideration to whether the timetable for the purchase of those 12 Joint Strike Fighters should occur on the same timetable," Smith told reporters.
Smith is concerned that any decision by the U.S. to reduce the number of jets it produces for its own forces would create another cost blowout.
Smith said in August last year that he would announce in 2012 whether Australia will invest in an alternative fighter such as the Boeing Co. Super Hornet to ensure that schedule delays do not compromise Australia's air force capabilities.
Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems, is building 2,400 of the next generation fighter jets for the U.S. as well as the partner nations. But the cost of the program has jumped from $233 billion to $385 billion. Some estimates suggest that it could top out at $1 trillion over 50 years.
Australia had planned to buy as many as 100 of the fighters for 16 billion Australian dollars ($17 billion).
But the government will announce this year whether any more than 14 will be bought for about AU$3 billion.
Australia has 71 standard F/A-18 Hornets that are due to retire around 2020.
Australia last year took delivery of the last four of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets for AU$6 billion. The Super Hornets, built by Boeing in conjunction with Northrup Grumman, GE Aircraft Engines and Raytheon, were ordered in 2007 to maintain Australia's air force capabilities during the transition to the JSF over the next decade.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
South Korea to open bids for $7.4 billion fighter jet program
SEOUL | Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:57am EST
(Reuters) - South Korea has invited Boeing (BA.N), Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) and EADS (EAD.PA) to participate in its next generation fighter jet program, in which the country will invest 8.3 trillion won ($7.39 billion) until 2021.
The next generation air-power project comes as the country braces for changing dynamics on the Korean Peninsula after the death in December of Kim Jong-il, the former leader of North Korea, with which the South is still technically at war.
Neighboring Japan recently chose U.S. contractor Lockheed Martin to build a fleet of 42 F-35 planes, valued by analysts at more than $7 billion, and China plans to introduce its own stealth fighters.
The deadline for proposals will close on June 18, South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said at a presentation to contractors.
Wee Jong-seong, director of the agency's fighter project team, said the three firms' aircraft met operational capability requirements.
Prospective planes for the bidding include Lockheed's F-35 Lightning II and EADS's Eurofighter Typhoon.
A DAPA spokesman declined to specify how many planes it planned to buy.
($1 = 1123.1500 Korean won)
(Reporting by Ju-min Park; Editing by Jonathan Hopfner
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/us-korea-jet-idUSTRE80T0AM20120130
Citaat van: dudge op 30/01/2012 | 09:34 uur
Citaat van: Reuters op 30/01/2012 | 08:38 uur
Wee Jong-seong, director of the agency's fighter project team, said the three firms' aircraft met operational capability requirements.
Waarmee de competitie dus opeens niet meer (puur) tussen capabilities gaat, maar juist ook de randvoorwaarden erg belangrijk worden. Vraag is, welke randvoorwaarden? Ik vraag me af of de Koreanen de levertijden van de F35 kunnen/willen afwachten. In dat geval staan Boeing en EADS er voor dit contract opeens aardig voor.
Aangezien de Koreanen bezig zijn met hun eigen 5e generatie vliegtuig, de JSF voor Korea ergens na 2020 beschikbaar zal zijn (tenzij de Amerikanen nog eens tientallen in mindering brengen voor hun eigen vloot) de EF voldoet aan vrijwel alle wensen en eisen maar zal vermoedelijk als stalking horse gebruikt worden en de F15 daar reeds goed functioneerd, zal de vermoedelijke uitkomst van dit feestje een neuwe F15 zijn.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 30/01/2012 | 09:48 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 30/01/2012 | 09:34 uur
Citaat van: Reuters op 30/01/2012 | 08:38 uur
Wee Jong-seong, director of the agency's fighter project team, said the three firms' aircraft met operational capability requirements.
Waarmee de competitie dus opeens niet meer (puur) tussen capabilities gaat, maar juist ook de randvoorwaarden erg belangrijk worden. Vraag is, welke randvoorwaarden? Ik vraag me af of de Koreanen de levertijden van de F35 kunnen/willen afwachten. In dat geval staan Boeing en EADS er voor dit contract opeens aardig voor.
Aangezien de Koreanen bezig zijn met hun eigen 5e generatie vliegtuig, de JSF voor Korea ergens na 2020 beschikbaar zal zijn (tenzij de Amerikanen nog eens tientallen in mindering brengen voor hun eigen vloot) de EF voldoet aan vrijwel alle wensen en eisen maar zal vermoedelijk als stalking horse gebruikt worden en de F15 daar reeds goed functioneerd, zal de vermoedelijke uitkomst van dit feestje een neuwe F15 zijn.
Klopt, lijk me ook logisch, Korea's huidige toestellen-bestand bestaat uit F-15's. De laastst gekochte batch was ook F-15.
Ook de bay's aan de zijkant voor fuel en internal weapons worden in Korea gemaakt. Dus een keuze voor F-15KSE zou ook voor de eigen industie een stimulans zijn
S. Korea to review advanced fighter jets for performance, interoperability
SEOUL, Jan. 30 (Yonhap) -- South Korea plans to review candidates for its multi-billion dollar fighter aircraft procurement project using four major criteria including performance and compatibility with local forces, officials said Monday.
The state-run Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) announced that bidders of the South's F-X III project will have to satisfy criteria in categories of cost, functional requirements, interoperability with South Korean forces and economic and technical benefits. DAPA officials said these four major criteria will have 150 sub-categories.
For the F-X project, worth 8.29 trillion won (US$7.4 billion), South Korea is seeking to acquire 60 fifth-generation fighter jets with stealth capabilities. The winner is expected to be announced in October this year.
Air Force Col. Wi Jong-seong, head of the aircraft program department at the DAPA, said the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) plans to finalize point scales for these criteria by early April.
The review categories were unveiled at the DAPA's explanatory session for prospective bidders. Firms attending the session included Lockheed Martin and Boeing of the United States, multi-national European firm European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), and Swedish firm Saab, according to the DAPA.
The F-15SE Silent Eagle by Boeing, F-35 Lightning II by Lockheed Martin and Eurofighter Typhoon by the EADS are expected to enter the bid.
Russian firm Sukhoi, with its T-50 PAK-FA, was thought to be in the running but did not attend Monday's meeting. It was not immediately clear if Saab was considering bidding for the project.
According to officials, South Korea plans to review candidate stealth and arming capabilities of candidate jets. The winning fighter model will also be required to build weapons systems that are interoperable and compatible with South Korean systems, they added. Finally, the winner will also be counted on to transfer key technologies to South Korea.
Experts believe the F-35 may have an edge in stealth capabilities and overall functions. EADS has pledged a full technology transfer, with no restrictions upon access to the technological information of the Eurofighter Typhoon, whereas some core technologies on the U.S. jets are controlled by the U.S. government.
The DAPA has said the F-X III is designed to help South Korea prepare against North Korea's asymmetrical forces and establish active deterrence with high-performance fighter jets.
"We explained details about the project to company representatives in attendance, including required functions, bidding schedules and terms of reciprocal deals, among others," Col. Wi said. "We stressed that we will guarantee an equal opportunity for everyone and pursue a fair and transparent project."
Interested companies must submit their RFP by mid-June. South Korea will review proposals in July, and then plans to carry out tests and hold negotiations from July to September.
"Candidates will be asked to submit their development plans and complete blueprints, so we will have a look at them at first," Wi explained. "Then during the testing, we will commission a separate team of expert evaluators to do more detailed work, covering the jet's body, engines, loaded equipment and maintenance."
The DAPA also said it has formed a task force on aviation forces, made up of DAPA officials and outside experts. The unit will oversee the F-X III project plus other major procurement projects, such as those for heavy attack helicopters and high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (HUAV).
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2012/01/30/35/0301000000AEN20120130009500315F.HTML
Capaciteiten Electronic Warfare niet opgenomen in F-35 door bezuinigingen, kan de F-35 nog wel wat ze allemaal beloofd hebben in het begin (2001). Moeten we straks nog extra Jammers kopen ??
Deze EW capaciteiten in combinatie met AESA radar nu wel in nieuwe ontwikkeling Next Generation Jammer voor de EF-18G !!
New EW Capabilities To Emerge With NGJ
Technologies being offered up by the aerospace industry for the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) are still closely held, but clues are emerging.
The active, electronically scanned array (AESA), for example, is now a part of all the competing teams' offerings, and that offers the potential for NGJ to become both an electronic sensor and a weapon. But there will have to be intense development to make it an operational reality, and funding for such esoteric capabilities can be elusive. Earlier options to upgrade the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with electronic information-gathering and electronic attack systems were not funded.
"That was the first thing that went, as a way to save money," says Lt. Gen. (ret.) Dave Deptula, the U.S. Air Force's first chief of intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance. "It wasn't the right decision. They are almost the only systems that can go into contested airspace and collect information. We are not limited by technology, but rather by bureaucratic, institutional and organizational inertia."
Now much of that task has fallen to the NGJ program and the platforms that will carry the new electronic surveillance and attack system. To exploit electronic warfare, the military will have to operate across a very broad swath of the electromagnetic spectrum.
"We are looking at breaking a basic AESA array into four quadrants so that we can use each for a different function or point them at different targets," says Mark Kula, Raytheon vice president for tactical airborne systems. "Or you can use the total array to provide a very high-power capability. Tile arrays for NGJ are expected to produce nearly three times the power in a much smaller package," he says. "If you use the quadrants of the array for different functions, power levels decrease. We're looking at the arrays in terms of elements that are steerable, directable and assignable in frequency."
The advanced technologies include techniques to make segmented arrays work while minimizing co- or cross-channel interference. One solution involves developing receivers/exciters with lower harmonics. In addition, there is already work ongoing to use an aircraft's skin as antennas.
Raytheon is now building AESA panel arrays that are one-half to one-third the depth of traditional tile arrays. Elements that were stacked vertically are now arranged horizontally, which offers flexibility for installation.
Navy officials indicate that with the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (Uclass) platform, for example, they would not want to carry a pod that would degrade the stealth signature. As a result, panel arrays are essential so that sensor elements can be integrated on or into the skin.
The use of gallium nitride transmitters is a key to wide-band capability and higher power levels. These devices generate heat; this requires cold-wall technology in which the tiles are embedded in an aluminum core that has coolant pumped through it at temperatures that permit longer duty cycles without burning up the electronics.
Stealthy vehicles will likely have antennas or arrays embedded in the skin that are then fed by transmitters somewhere in the interior of the airframe. But NGJ also comes with a requirement for more prime power than has been generated previously from a pod of its size. In fact, the power needed is several times greater.
"The Raytheon NGJ uses an internally mounted, ducted, ram-air-turbine generator that actually exceeds the power requirement," says Nick Uros, Raytheon vice president for NGJ. "During recent testing, the power generator was housed in a full-scale model of our NGJ pod to demonstrate full power, transient load switching and effective thermal control at various altitudes and speeds. We demonstrated that we can generate more power than NGJ needs within drag-performance limits."
In combat operations, Navy officials say the NGJ's electronic attacks will be supplemented by disposable, air-launched, EA weapons. The miniature air-launched decoy's jammer variant (Mald-J), for example, is a small cruise-missile type weapon being designed to carry a high-power microwave payload that can damage, blind or deceive enemy sensors from short range.
The advantage of Mald is that it is disposable and operates close to the target so that it does not have to put out so much power to effectively attack an electronic target.
Moreover, Mald is designed for a limited operational life, so there's little concern about heat buildup during the attack process. Its small size also has the advantage of making it difficult for enemy fires to shoot it down. Using Mald in conjunction with NGJ is a example of how multiple techniques can provide specific effects against integrated air defense systems.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/23/AW_01_23_2012_p26-415788.xml&headline=New EW Capabilities To Emerge With NGJ
UK MoD Comments on Times Report on Joint Strike Fighter
10:32 GMT, January 30, 2012 The Times reports Jan. 26 that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is questioning whether it should go ahead with plans to procure a fleet of new Joint Strike Fighter jets due to speculated delays in the programme. The paper also wrongly claims that the MOD declined to comment, when, in fact, the reporter was sent a statement on the issue and verbally briefed on inaccuracies in the story.
The MOD is taking delivery of our first Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets for test and evaluation purposes this year and is committed to purchasing the Carrier Variant of the JSF. Our plans remain on track to have a new Carrier Strike capability from around 2020.
The Defence Secretary recently met his US counterpart to discuss a number of issues including the Joint Strike Fighter and following the meeting we are confident that the US Defence Review will not impact upon our plans for regenerating Carrier Strike. An agreement was signed that will see the US and UK work closely on joint training and the integration of our carrier programmes.
Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Peter Luff said: "We continue to plan on delivery of JCA [Joint Combat Aircraft] capability coherently with the Carrier from 2020 as noted in the SDSR [Strategic Defence and Security Review]. However, we will not set a firm In Service Date until after our next Main Gate decision in 2013."
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/31773/?SID=587cd2a35091d025d11f4b466f079e61
Saab Says Swiss Gripen Jet Fighter Decision May Take All Year
By Ola Kinnander and Benedikt Kammel - Jan 30, 2012 11:10 AM GMT+0100 .
Saab AB (SAABB), which won a tentative Gripen jet fighter order with Switzerland, said final negotiations may take all year and that it's "natural" that rival Dassault Aviation SA (AM) is still fighting for a deal.
"It's not surprising they haven't given up," Erik Magni, a Saab (SAS) spokesman, said today by phone. It's "part of the game" that Dassault is still competing, he said.
Saab and Switzerland are holding negotiations that probably will "take up all of 2012," Magni said, adding the country's parliament has yet to make a decision and that the nation may hold a referendum on the issue.
Dassault made a fresh attempt to sell its Rafale fighter to Switzerland, offering 18 of the aircraft for 2.7 billion Swiss francs ($2.94 billion) after the government picked Saab in November, SonntagsZeitung reported, citing a letter sent to politicians.
The offer is about 400 million Swiss francs cheaper than the price Saab set for 22 Gripen jets Switzerland agreed to buy, the newspaper reported. Dassault initially demanded 4 billion francs for 22 Rafale jets. The new offer reduces the number of planes and adapts the jets more to Swiss requirements, the report said.
Dassault spokesmen didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.
Saab fell as much as 2.7 percent and was down 2 percent at 145.1 kronor at 11 a.m. in Stockholm. Dassault was up 0.8 percent in Paris.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-30/saab-says-swiss-gripen-jet-fighter-decision-may-take-all-year.html
No fighter jet deal before end March: AK Antony
NEW DELHI: India will not sign a multi-billion dollar deal to buy fighter jets before this fiscal year ending in March, defence minister A.K. Antony told reporters on Tuesday.
However, New Delhi will "soon" announce the lowest bidder for the contract worth about $11 billion, two defence ministry sources told Reuters separately.
Two European contenders are left in the race to sell India more than a 100 fighter jets and help revamp the country's creaking defence equipment in line with its rising global clout.
Still in the fray are Eurofighter, which makes the Typhoon fighter jet, and a four-nation consortium of EADS, representing Germany and Spain, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Finmeccanica.
Their competitor is France's Dassault, which makes the Rafale plane.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/no-fighter-jet-deal-before-end-march-ak-antony/articleshow/11696951.cms
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 31/01/2012 | 08:24 uur
No fighter jet deal before end March: AK Antony
Niets nieuws onder de Indiase zon, het tekenen voor de order zou voor het einde van het fiscale jaar plaatsvinden daar is nog tijd voor.
De bekendmaking van de winnaar zou in januari plaats vinden (dat wordt dan opschieten), hier lijkt enige vertraging te zijn ontstaan, een vertagingin die het geruchten circuit danig voed.
Het zal mij benieuwen.
Weer Nieuws uit Amerika
Ejection Parachute Issue Grounds F-35As
Fifteen new Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters, some of which are participating in the flight testing so critical to moving the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program forward, have been grounded owing to improper loading of parachutes in their ejection seats.
The suspension of flight and high-speed ground testing began Jan. 26 and affects aircraft at Edwards AFB, Calif., Eglin AFB, Fla., and Lockheed's production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, according to Joe Dellavedova at the U.S.-led JSF Joint Program Office. The root cause was "improperly drafted packing procedures," he adds.
The problematic chutes are not affecting eight test aircraft at NAS Patuxent River, Md., because they carry an earlier version of this seat and the parachutes were properly loaded, he says.
Parachutes for the Martin-Baker US16E-21 and -23 seats were "reversed 180 deg. from design during installation," Dellavedova says, and replacement seats from British manufacturer Martin-Baker are expected to take 10 days to arrive. "This issue will not prevent the pilot from executing a successful ejection and landing in the unlikely event of a pilot ejection," Dellavedova says. The problem was uncovered during a routine review, he says, adding that it is premature to discuss any penalties as a result of the mishap.
One industry source notes, however, that an ejection "would have likely caused passenger load factor injury" because pilots would "have hit the ground going backwards." Because the parachutes were loaded backwards, their steering lines would also have been reversed, affecting a pilot's ability to guide himself to a landing site.
The affected equipment will have to be shipped back to Martin-Baker's factory in the U.K. for repair; the repacked chutes will then first be put on the six grounded aircraft at Edwards to return them to flight testing. The six F-35As and three F-35Bs at Eglin AFB, Fla. were already limited to ground operations pending "military flight release" from the Air Force to fly the aircraft unmonitored in the area. So they will be next to receive the newly packed boxes. Eglin flights were held up owing to concerns cited from the Pentagon's chief tester last fall. Among them was a warning not to fly over water until the -24 seat, the model intended for the operational F-35, is available, owing to concerns of pilot drowning with the older seat versions.
"Aircraft in production at Fort Worth were also affected but their parachutes will be repacked prior to the first acceptance flights," Dellavedova says.
This mishap comes as Goodrich, the only remaining U.S. ejection seat manufacturer, is in the final throes of attempting to unseat Martin-Baker on the F-35A, which is likely to be purchased by at least 11 countries, with the U.S. Air Force potentially buying as many as 1,763. Without a major program like the F-35, the company's opportunities to get the Aces 5, the latest in its Aces family of seats, into a new service platform are grim in the near future. The next major opportunity would be the Air Force's T-38C replacement program, which has yet to formally be kicked off.
Booz Allen Hamilton studied whether the USAF Air Combat Command's (ACC) use of the Aces 5 seat for its F-35As would save money over the life of the fighter for the service, due to commonality with the Aces 2 seats already in its fleet. "That exhaustive analysis led us to conclude that, while there are potential savings associated with the Goodrich Aces 5 seat, the amount is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the risk and up-front cost of integrating a new ejection seat into the F-35 weapon system at this time," says Capt. Jennifer Ferrau, an ACC spokeswoman. "ACC and the Air Force strongly support the Joint Program Office's commitment to pursue efficiencies in order to secure greater value for all JSF stakeholders."
Lawmakers last year requested information on the study, and the Air Force recently notified staffs of the conclusions. The study or its data will not be released, according to Ferrau, because it contains proprietary information about the pricing of the seats.
The Pentagon was slated to decide in a Joint Executive Steering Board meeting whether it would be open to adding the Goodrich seat to the F-35A in December. But the U.S. decision to slice as many as 179 F-35s from purchasing plans through 2017 prompted officials to move the meeting to March.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/01/30/awx_01_30_2012_p0-419346.xml&headline=Ejection Parachute Issue Grounds F-35As
UPDATE 1-No India jet fighter deal before end March - minister
Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:31am EST
(Adds details, quotes)
By Manoj Kumar and Nigam Prusty
Jan 31 (Reuters) - India will not sign a multi-billion dollar contract to buy European fighter jets before the fiscal year ends in March, the defence minister said about a deal to revamp ageing weapons in line with the country's rising global clout.
However, India will "soon" announce the lowest bidder for the tender for 126 jets worth up to $15 billion, two government sources with knowledge of the deal told Reuters.
The Typhoon fighter made by four-nation consortium Eurofighter EADS is competing with Dassault's Rafale jet to win what is one of the largest weapons contracts currently under negotiation globally.
"Not this financial year," Defence Minister A.K. Antony told Reuters in reply to a question about when the deal that has been in the works since 2007 would be signed.
"It is a long process. The file has not come to my table," he said, adding that the finance ministry and cabinet would have to look at the agreement after he signs off.
Eurofighter EADS represents Germany and Spain, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Finmeccanica. Dassault is French.
One defence ministry source with knowledge of the negotiations said each Rafale was $4 million to $5 million cheaper and the plane was preferred by the Air Force.
"Unit-wise, the French plane is much cheaper than the Eurofighter. Moreover, the Indian Airforce, which is well-equipped with French fighters, is favouring the French fighter," said the source, who asked not be named.
The source added the defence ministry was considering further extending the tender to buy an additional 80 or so jets, saying bidders excluded from the current process might be permitted to take part. (Reporting by Manoj Kumar and Nigam Prusty; writing by Frank Jack Daniel; editing by Malini Menon)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/india-defence-idUSL4E8CV3XR20120131
Dassault Rafale wins USD 10.4 billion Indian Air Force jet fighter deal: Sources
NDTV Correspondent, Updated: January 31, 2012 17:08 IST
New Delhi: Sources have told NDTV that the French aviation company Dassault Rafale has won the $10.4 billion deal for supplying fighter aircraft to India. The Indian Airforce plans to buy 126 aircraft over the next ten years.
The first 18 aircraft will be bought off the shelf. The rest 118 will be manufactured in partnership with an Indian company.
There were six contenders for the worlds biggest defence deal which included MIG- 35, F-16 Falcon, F-18 Hornet, Gripen Euro-Fighter, Typhoon and Rafale. Of these, the Typhoon and Rafale were shortlisted. The rest were rejected as they didn't meet the technical qualifications.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/dassault-rafale-wins-indian-air-force-jet-fighter-deal-sources-171975
Al moeten we nog wel even wachten op de officiële bevestiging!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 31/01/2012 | 09:07 uur
UPDATE 1-No India jet fighter deal before end March - minister
Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:31am EST
The source added the defence ministry was considering further extending the tender to buy an additional 80 or so jets, saying bidders excluded from the current process might be permitted to take part. (Reporting by Manoj Kumar and Nigam Prusty; writing by Frank Jack Daniel; editing by Malini Menon)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/india-defence-idUSL4E8CV3XR20120131
Betekend dit dat ook Saab weer mee mag doen voor de volgende 80 toestellen?
Dit bericht spreekt overigens tegen dat de Rafale al gewonnen heeft. In dit bericht staat uit onbevestigde bron dat de Rafale de voorkeur van de luchtmacht heeft... maar dat zegt in principe niets omdat de regering beslist en de regering wil ook politiek gewin, (met 4 landen ipv 1) en techonlogie transfer......
Citaat van: Chrisis op 31/01/2012 | 12:49 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 31/01/2012 | 09:07 uur
UPDATE 1-No India jet fighter deal before end March - minister
Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:31am EST
The source added the defence ministry was considering further extending the tender to buy an additional 80 or so jets, saying bidders excluded from the current process might be permitted to take part. (Reporting by Manoj Kumar and Nigam Prusty; writing by Frank Jack Daniel; editing by Malini Menon)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/india-defence-idUSL4E8CV3XR20120131
Betekend dit dat ook Saab weer mee mag doen voor de volgende 80 toestellen?
Dit bericht spreekt overigens tegen dat de Rafale al gewonnen heeft. In dit bericht staat uit onbevestigde bron dat de Rafale de voorkeur van de luchtmacht heeft... maar dat zegt in principe niets omdat de regering beslist en de regering wil ook politiek gewin, (met 4 landen ipv 1) en techonlogie transfer......
Het bericht dat Rafale gewonnen heeft is minder dan 10 min oud (volgens de Indiase TV)
Rafale Beats Eurofighter In Indian MMRCA Contest
Tue, Jan 31, 2012 12:51 CET
French combat plane manufacturer Dassault's Rafale fighter has won the Indian MMRCA competiton beating the European consortum's Eurofighter aircraft in a contest that went on for four years. Rafale executives were called by Indian MOD officials this morning and informed that their aircraft has been finally selected.
The Dassualt team has been issued a letter confirming the Indian MOD's choice, sources told Defenseworld.net. Separately, Eurofighter executives were called in and informed of their elimination from the contest this afternoon,sources close to Eurofighter informed Defenseworld.net.
The final choice was made on price, sources said adding that the French aircraft's total cost worked to about 20% cheaper than that of the Eurofighter.
The India win means sweet success for Dassault which has been struggling in the international marketplace for decades now to find an international buyer for its Rafale multi role fighter. The final price is estimated to US$12 billion for 126 fighters. Some 24 fighters are expected to be sent to Indian in a fly-away condition while the rest are to be licence-manufactured in India.
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?catid=3&id=6522&h=Rafale%20Beats%20Eurofighter%20Indian%20MMRCA%20Contest
Voor het eerste breaking news interview
zie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG8qahjCf8Y&feature=player_embedded
Russia's Sukhoi PAKFA T-50 loses competition without battle
31.01.2012
Russia's Sukhoi PAKFA T-50 fifth-generation fighter jet did not struggle with Western rivals for South Korea's lucrative tender of $7.3 billion. First off, Russia is not willing to share its secret technologies with US allies. Secondly, Russia does not hope for victory. To crown it all, the serial production of the widely advertised T-50 fighter jet has not been arranged yet, officials with the domestic aviation industry told Izvestia.
South Korea intends to purchase 60 new fighter jets within the scope of the third stage of its F-X rearmament project. The new jets will be defending the airspace of South Korea during the forthcoming 30 years.
The deal has already earned the reputation of the "contract of the century." The scale of the deal is unexampled for the country. The organization committee of the tender stopped receiving bids last week. It turned out that there would be European and US companies fighting for the Korean billions. It particularly goes about Europe's EADS Concern with its Eurofighter Typhoon, Sweden's SAAB and its Gripen and two US companies - Lockheed Martin with F-35 (Lightning II) and Boeing with F-15SE (Silent Eagle).
It was earlier reported that Russia's Sukhoi design bureau was also going to take part in the tender. The Korea Times wrote with reference to the South Korean defense agency that Russia would offer its PAKFA T-50 fifth-generation fighters.
However, it turns out that the Russian aircraft by the United Aircraft Corporation was not going to offer its products for the tender.
"The T-50 technologies are secret. Only three test versions of the fighter have been built so far. The export variant has not even been created. In addition, South Korea is a US ally. It does not seem to be likely that the country will choose the Russian jets instead of the American ones," officials told The Izvestia newspaper.
Alexander Konovalov, the director of the Institute for Strategic Analysis, is certain, though, that Russia is not ready yet to present a competitive fifth-generation fighter jet to experts.
"We only begin our work in this field. At international tenders, they set forth very high requirements to aircraft. They are supposed to be able to accept and process a great deal of information. They should have powerful computers on board. What is more, such aircraft must develop ultrasonic speed and stay invisible to radars," the specialists list.
"For example, to make their aircraft less detectable to radars, the Americans cover their fighter jets with small copper rings. We do not have anything like that," the expert said.
The T-50 became a Russian response to USA's F-22 and F-35 fifth-generation fighters. The test flights of the US aircraft are to be completed in 2012. Afterwards, in 2013, Russia will launch the tests of new missiles of the new jets.
Igor Korotchenko, the director of the Center for the Analysis of World Arms Trade, believes that Russia's T-50 project does not need the financial support from South Korea.
"Russia is expecting a large contract with India. India has already contracted 250 T-50 fighters. Therefore, the technical loss of those hypothetical $7.3 billon is not critical for the Russian project. We've already participated in South Korean tender before. As experience showed, the country prefers to purchase from the Americans," the expert stated.
Indeed, it appears that South Korea has already chosen its customer - the USA that is. South Korean MBN TV channel reported that Seoul had paid $1 million for the documentation on one of the competing airplanes - F-35. The payment was made prior to the tender. This information may mean that the political decision to purchase the fighter jets from the United States has already been made. Defense experts realize, though, that Eurofighter Typhoon could also be a serious competition.
Russia took part in the tender for the fighter jet for the Air Force of South Korea in 2002. Russia's Su-35 lost the tender to F-15 of the USA. It is worthy of note that Seoul has purchased military hardware from Russia before. The South Korean army has T-80 tanks and BMP-3 armored vehicles.
US, European and Russian companies previously participated in the Indian tender for the delivery of a multi-purpose fighter jet within the scope of the MMRCA program. Russia took part with its MiG-35 fighter, although it did not win the tender.
http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/31-01-2012/120377-sukhoi_pakfa_fifth_generation-0/
F-35 story shows why it's so hard to cut a federal program
By JAMES ROSEN AND ROB HOTAKAINEN - McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - For all its high-tech stealth and record price tag, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter embodies the droll military motto, "Hurry up and wait."
Conceived in the heady post-Cold War 1990s, the futuristic fifth-generation jet fighter was to be a technological marvel built in a rush and paid for with "peace dividend" dollars.
But now with the economic crash, the fighter is billions over budget and years behind schedule.
Here's part of the problem: axing the F-35 would eliminate tens of thousands of jobs in 47 states. Few members of Congress are willing to go along.
Here's another part: The jet fighter is needed to replace aging U.S. military planes, but - already the most costly weapons system ever, at $385 billion and rising - it might be more expensive than the nation can afford.
Despite criticism from defense secretaries, government investigators and powerful senators, the Pentagon still wants the Joint Strike Fighter - but the Defense Department might want more plane than it needs.
"A lot of times, the Pentagon just wants to sexy these things up and make them do wow stuff when wow is not required," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told McClatchy Newspapers.
In the current budget crisis, with the Pentagon facing $1 trillion in possible cuts, the F-35's high price tag makes it a prime target. But thanks in part to campaign contributions from its main contractors and their jobs spread across the country, the fighter plane has its own congressional caucus of 48 lawmakers dedicated to saving it at all costs.
When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Jan. 20 that he wouldn't kill the F-35 program outright, there were sighs of relief across the country for subcontractors and parts suppliers that the jet's main manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has promised will provide 127,000 jobs in 47 states.
Think of the F-35 as the military's version of Medicare: There are huge potential spending cuts, but also powerful constituencies demanding the plane.
The struggle over the Joint Strike Fighter reflects the broader challenge that lawmakers and President Barack Obama face: The biggest budget savings come from large government programs that are popular and, in some cases, needed.
Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington state Democrat, calls the F-35 jet "the big enchilada," the most advanced stealth aircraft in the world and a great investment in U.S. national security.
For Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Joint Strike Fighter is a scandal and a tragedy, beset by delays and huge cost overruns.
Evading radar systems at supersonic speeds, the sleek aircraft would be the first to serve three of the main U.S. military services - the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps - each of which has always had its own special plane.
Panetta's clemency for this futuristic fighter is hardly a new lease on life.
In releasing the Pentagon's budget priorities this month, Panetta restated the Defense Department's commitment to the troubled Joint Strike Fighter while delivering an endorsement that felt more like kissing a second cousin.
"In this budget, we have slowed procurement to complete more testing and allow for development changes before buying in significant quantities," he said.
Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Cater provided a blunter assessment.
"The Joint Strike Fighter is not ready to go into full-rate production," he told PBS late Thursday.
It was the third slowdown in as many years for the beleaguered program.
Now many of the 6,000 workers at Lockheed Martin's F-35 final assembly plant outside Fort Worth, Texas, will have time on their hands. The state-of-the-art factory, which had expected to be churning out 100 of the jet fighters annually, will be lucky to make 30 this year.
The new slowdown means that most of the jobs Lockheed Martin promised haven't materialized yet in Texas, California, Florida, Illinois and other states that need them in a slow economy.
Most of all, it means that the Pentagon may fall well short of its initial pledge to buy 2,443 of the F-35s; that a dozen allied and other foreign countries eager to buy the plane could end up, combined, owning more of the aircraft than the United States does; that instead of an anticipated hundreds of the jet fighters flying in the U.S. military by now, it probably will be 2016 or beyond before they're deployed.
All this explains why Graham, who backs the program, sounds like a jilted groom describing why he still loves his runaway bride.
"It's probably one of the most mismanaged programs in the Pentagon, but the aircraft is mission essential for our country," Graham said. "When people say the F-35 is very costly and behind schedule and over budget, they're right. Part of the blame is the military; part of it's the contractor," a reference to Lockheed Martin.
"But we need the fighter," he said. "To stop production of the F-35 now after finally getting the kinks worked out would make no sense."
Dicks, who founded the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus in November with Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, said the F-35 wasn't the first major new weapons system to encounter problems.
"Everybody would like to see a low-cost, no-problem development," Dicks said in an interview. "But there's never been one. We have to do this: The Marine Corp needs stealth, the Air Force needs stealth and the Navy needs stealth. ... I think it's going to turn out to be a good airplane. We've got to work hard to get the fixes."
Lockheed Martin and the F-35's three other primary contractors - Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney - are using generous campaign contributions to tilt the political field in their favor.
Those four aerospace giants contributed $326,400 to the 48 members of the F-35 caucus last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, a research center that tracks money in politics.
Each member of the caucus received an average amount that's nearly double the average that the companies' political action committees gave to other lawmakers.
Dicks said there was no connection between the $29,500 he got from the contractors and his advocacy of the Joint Strike Fighter.
"I try to call these things on the merits and support the programs that I think that are going to add to the security of the country, he said. "Campaign contributions have nothing to do with it."
Thomas Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a research center in Washington, said the F-35 was being built on the fly and funded by lawmakers who - partially because of the project's jobs in their districts - didn't want to kill it but couldn't afford to provide enough money to meet the constantly shifting technological challenges.
"The program plan has changed every year for a decade," Donnelly said. "We've had to invent it and build it at the same time. So you're going to take some technological risks, but you're going to keep building and fixing. Inventing something that's never been made before is inherently risky."
It wasn't supposed to be this way.
With the Cold War over, the Joint Strike Fighter was designed to amaze the world and cement the United States' status as the sole remaining superpower. The new plane would ensure that Americans "own the skies" during the stealth dogfights Pentagon planners predicted would dominate the wars of the future.
Just after F-35 design work began in earnest, terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. Then came the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have drained a combined $1 trillion from Pentagon coffers and produced new priorities in the "war on terror."
With lawmakers scrambling to find deep spending cuts to ease the debt crisis, the rising cost of the Joint Strike Fighter, plus its production and test problems, have made the program a prime target.
"In a nutshell, the JSF program has been both a scandal and a tragedy," McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, said last month on the Senate floor.
"We are saddled with a program that has little to show for itself after 10 years and $56 billion in taxpayer investment," he said.
While McCain stopped short of calling for the program to be axed, his criticism is all the more remarkable since Arizona's Yuma Marine Corps Air Station is slated to get six F-35B squadrons with 88 aircraft.
The specter of the ill-fated F-22 program hangs over the Joint Strike Fighter.
Conceived during the Cold War, the F-22 was designed to combat Soviet planes in a potential Third World War.
But when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, the F-22 became a plane without a mission. The Pentagon purchased only 187 of a planned 750 of the aircraft, and then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates ended the program in 2009.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/01/31/2373586/f-35-story-shows-why-its-so-hard.html
Citaat van: dudge op 31/01/2012 | 15:13 uur
Het wordt nog wat met de Europese fighter industrie zo.
Eurofighter:
-UK
-Duitsland
-Italie
-Spanje
-Saudi-Arabie
-Oostenrijk |
Gripen:
-Zweden
-Zuid-Afrika
-Hongarije
-Tsjechië
-Thailand |
Rafale:
-Frankrijk
-India |
En nog voldoende competities lopen.....
Nu is natuurlijk een order pas een order als het contract getekend en betaalt is, maar ik vermoed dat de Franse overwinning zal leiden tot een aantal additionele verkopen in het midden oosten en wellicht in Z Amerika.
Wel is het zaak om naast enthousiatme ook innovatie onder de loep te nemen, het wordt tijd (al is het maar achter de schermen) dat de 3 Europese producenten hun koppen constructief bij elkaar steken om op basis van consensus te komen tot plannen voor na 2030/35.
Als ze dat niet gaan doen, dan zouden de jaren tot 2030 wel eens de glorie jaren van de Europese fighter industrie kunnen blijken te zijn.
Citaat van: dudge op 31/01/2012 | 15:05 uur
Zeer goed nieuws voor de Rafale!
Wel is het nieuw voor me dat de Fransen er nu 24 bouwen, eerder in het topic werd altijd gesproken over 18 in Frankrijk te bouwen.
Verder een prima prijs, al is het een estimate, en zal deze vast nog wat stijgen.
Er zijn nog wel een paar vraagjes...
Ik heb al getallen gehoord die varieren van 15 tot 20 mjd usd (waarbij het niet duidelijk is of hierin de optionele kisten zijn meegenomen)
De meest pers artikelen spreken over 18 in Frankrijk te bouwen kisten.
Mismanagement of F-35 program results in budget cuts
January 29, 2012 (by Eric L. Palmer) - Where are the large orders that are to produce "economies of scale" and "affordability" for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)? Apparently in someone's imagination from 2001.
Consider that everything low-rate-initial-production (LRIP) batch 5 and before has little value because hardware that drives the final Block 3 software does not arrive until LRIP-6. Many of the various fixes for the F-35s other problems do not arrive until LRIP-7 or LRIP-8; at the earliest. And it will take some years for Block 3 software--which in part signifies the F-35 is ready to move on to full-rate production--to work in anything resembling a final go-to-war jet. Yet, delays to fixing technical problems are the consistent metric in the F-35 program.
The Joint Strike Fighter Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is what joint strike fighter partner nations--Australia, Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S.--agree upon for their yearly order projections. These yearly order projections mentioned in MOU's over the years are more imagination, than a plan based on hard analysis.
Because of the 2nd Nunn-McCurdy U.S. DOD budget breach and various restructures to the program, the most recent MOU is April of 2010. Since then, more discovery of technical defects have created numerous kinds of problems for political decision makers.
And, who wants to buy a bunch of incomplete mistake-jets? So far it seems, the U.S., the U.K. (who now have a F-35B STOVL aircraft that is completely irrelevant to future air operations; is riddled with technical defects and has no credible working mission systems) and the Netherlands who have shown tremendous political confusion over the F-35 in recent years with purchase of "training" aircraft.
This graphic compares the April 2010 MOU to the recent U.S. DOD budget announcement. It illustrates U.S. per year F-35 orders are lacking. (Note: I have converted the MOU from calendar year to U.S. Fiscal year). Claims of "economies of scale" in the F-35 program seem a long way off. As a historical perspective here are some previous (and very optimistic projections) of F-35 orders. See a pattern?
And some say buying in 2016 is good because it represents "peak production" and low price. That faith-based idea, like others is dead.
What about Israel and Japan? What about Korea?
What about them? Israel, while being an interested security partner in the F-35 program has procurement of U.S. military equipment handled in a special way. Japan and Korea are run under the U.S. foreign military sales program (FMS). Those countries are expecting an F-35 with a mature design. Evidence of that has not surfaced. Also curious, is that FMS customers will get better home industry compensation than non-U.S. F-35 partner nations.
But didn't U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta recently state commitment to the program? Yes. And, it is an election year. That "commitment" comes with a U.S. DOD plan to cut 179 F-35 orders between FY2013~2017 due to numerous unresolved technical defects which are the source of program delay and price blow-outs. That is on top of previous cuts from previous restructures.
Until further notice, FY2011 seems to be "peak production" for the F-35.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4508.html
India to buy 126 Rafale fighter jets in $11B deal with French aviation company Dassault
NEW DELHI — India is buying 126 French-made combat aircraft in a massive $11 billion deal that will increase the might of the world's fourth largest air force with the first exported Rafale jets, officials said Tuesday.
India has become the world's biggest arms importer as an economic boom has allowed it to push modernization of its military, and major arms manufacturers are wooing the country as it replaces its obsolete Soviet-era weapons and buys new equipment.
Dassault Aviation said it was honored to extend cooperation with India, which has a fleet of its older Mirage jets, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy welcomed India's decision.
Dassault snapped up the €8.4 billion deal with the lower bid in a two-way competition against the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, said an Indian official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters about the sensitive defense deal.
India's air force has around 700 fighter aircraft and is exceeded in size by the United States, Russia and China.
Growing worries about China's fast-expanding military and the decades-old mistrust of Pakistan have fueled India's impetus to add heft to its defense forces.
"India needs to bolster its fighting capabilities, particularly with long-range strike aircraft," said Rahul Bedi, a defense analyst in New Delhi.
"India's concern is not just Pakistan, but the longer term threat posed by an aggressive China," Bedi said.
The Indian agreement is the first foreign deal for Dassault's Rafale fighter jets. Planes from Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin of the United States and from Russian and Swedish makers were dropped from consideration earlier for technical reasons.
Eighteen fighter aircraft will be delivered in "fly away" condition within three years and the remaining 108 are to be built by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through technology transfers.
Defense ministry experts were still fine-tuning pricing details, including the cost of on-board weaponry and royalties for producing the aircraft in India. Sarkozy said contract negotiations will begin "very soon."
The French have for years been trying to get an export deal. Just last month, French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet warned the Rafale program could be stopped if foreign buyers don't materialize.
Longuet maintained the Rafale is an "excellent plane" but acknowledged it is handicapped by its price.
The Rafale, in service for the French Air Force since 2006, has been flying air support roles in Afghanistan since 2007, and was a big part of the NATO air campaign against Moammar Gadhafi's forces in Libya in 2011.
For years, political leaders from different countries had made a strong pitch for their aviation companies at meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other Indian leaders.
"The reported $5 million difference between the candidates is exceptionally small, and indicates this was a very close race — practically a photo finish," said Endre Lunde, a consultant with IHS Jane's Defence Weekly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/french-aviation-company-dassault-wins-11b-indian-fighter-jet-deal-beating-out-eurofighter/2012/01/31/gIQAk5VfeQ_story.html
Swiss govt says has not had cheaper Dassault offer
Switzerland's defence ministry has not received a second offer from aircraft maker Dassault that is cheaper than the type of fighter jet it is planning to buy, a spokeswoman said.
"No official offer has been received here until now," a spokeswoman for the defense ministry said.
Dassault offered Switzerland 18 Rafale jets for 2.7 billion Swiss francs ($2.9 billion), below what Berne is planning to spend for 22 Swedish planes, the newspaper SonntagsZeitung reported on Sunday. The newspaper did not say when the offer for the 18 jets was made, Reuters reports.
Neutral Switzerland has wrangled for the past three years over how to replace its ageing Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, purchased in 1976 and 1981, with up to 33 new aircraft.
In November, Swedish defence and aerospace group Saab won a $3.4 billion deal to replace Switzerland's fighter jet fleet with 22 JAS-39 Gripens.
The Swiss government justified its decision to go with Saab's Gripen on the basis of affordability and because it fulfilled military requirements.
Citing a letter it had seen, the SonntagsZeitung reported that Dassault, which originally offered 22 Rafales for 4 billion francs, said it was never able to optimise its offer based on Switzerland's needs.
Now the Swiss government has decided what kind of plane to buy, that has become part of an armaments programme which is voted on by parliament, the defence ministry spokeswoman said.
Although parliament could reject it, the procurement effort would then have to begin again from scratch, with all competitors able to submit fresh bids, she said.
Dassault has struggled to find a foreign buyer for the multi-role Rafale, which is billed as one of the most effective fighters in the world but also one of the most expensive.
France's defence minister said in December production of the Rafale will end if it does not land any export orders.
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23040:swiss-govt-says-has-not-had-cheaper-dassault-offer&catid=7:Industry&Itemid=116 (http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23040:swiss-govt-says-has-not-had-cheaper-dassault-offer&catid=7:Industry&Itemid=116)
Boeing to test F-15SE fighter jet for South Korea
31 January 2012
Boeing is scheduled to conduct a series of ground, wind-tunnel and flight tests on new F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) systems as part of South Korea's F-X III contract.
Boeing vice-president for sales Howard Berry said that the wind-tunnel tests on a scale model of the F-15SE will start in March or April. The model used will include weapons bays to assess the aerodynamic performance from various angles for the Silent Eagle's proposed canted vertical tails.
The weapon bays are the modified conformal fuel tanks, which allow the F-15 to store weapons internally and lower the aircraft's radar profile; the bays themselves have already undergone testing, as reported by Flightglobal.
Other key elements of the F-15SE include radar cross-section (RCS) reductions, aerodynamic improvements, as well as advanced avionics enhancements.
It is fitted with advanced cockpit systems, a digital electronic warfare system and sensors. Flight testing will be carried out in the fourth quarter of 2012 or early 2013, Berry added.
The Silent Eagle was originally designed with tails canted at 15º as a stealth technique, enabling the aircraft to bank up to 15º on either side, without presenting a 90º angle to airborne radars and also to improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft.
Scheduled tests are aimed to prepare the Silent Eagle to be ready for operations with South Korea from 2016. The nation is likely to release a request for proposals for the F-X III requirements following a contract, which will be awarded in October 2012 for up to 62 aircraft.
The Boeing-built F-15E dual-role fighter is the latest version of the Eagle, a Mach 2.5-class twin-engine fighter. Currently, more than 1,500 F-15s are in service with the US, Israel, Japan and Saudi Arabia, including more than 220 F-15E fighters.
The fifth-generation combat aircraft, if selected against Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35, will replace the aging South Korean Air Force fighter jet fleet.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsboeing-to-test-f-15se-fighter-jet-for-south-korea/ (http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsboeing-to-test-f-15se-fighter-jet-for-south-korea/)
Er komen wellicht wat A-10's vrij iemand interesse?
-----
5 A-10 squadrons to be cut
Tight budgets lead AF to focus on F-35 capabilities
By Jeff Schogol - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jan 30, 2012 10:01:18 EST
The A-10 Thunderbolt II provides the type of close-air support that ground-pounders love and the Taliban dread. Although the A-10s are workhorses in the war on terrorism, the Air Force in its new budget request is planning to get rid of five squadrons.
As part of the Defense Department's efforts to trim close to $500 billion in spending over the next decade, defense officials said Friday that the service intends to cut five A-10 tactical squadrons and two other squadrons as well.
The Thunderbolt squadrons to be stood down encompass one active-duty, one Reserve and three National Guard units. The remaining two squadrons disappearing are a Guard F-16 tactical unit and an F-15 training squadron.
The move was part of a series of proposed budget cuts announced Jan. 26 at the Pentagon. Also on the chopping block are the C-27 and the Global Hawk Block 30; and as the ground force shrinks, the service plans to retire the oldest of its aging transport aircraft.
Facing a new age of fiscal austerity, the Defense Department is trying to pivot away from the counterinsurgency campaigns of the past decade, which required large numbers of conventional forces, toward smaller, less expensive missions waged primarily by special operations forces.
While the A-10 is very good at providing close-air support, the Air Force needs aircraft that can do more than one mission, Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Jan. 26 in an interview with Military Times reporters and editors.
"Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I don't think anybody believes that," he said, "But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be? So again, the Air Force is trying to get as much multimission capability into the limited number of platforms it's going to have."
While Air Force fighter aircraft are the most advanced in the world, some critics have said the need for an aircraft that can outfight near-peer rivals seems a bit over the horizon. But Winnefeld said the issue is not so clear-cut.
"It could be that those who think there's never going to be an air-to-air engagement ever again in the history of the world could be wrong," Winnefeld said. "It could be those who believe that the close-air support role of the A-10 is absolutely paramount could be wrong, as well."
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/01/airforce-5-a10-squadrons-cut-013012/ (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/01/airforce-5-a10-squadrons-cut-013012/)
UPDATE 4-French Rafale favoured for multi-billion dollar India jet deal
Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:25am EST
* India's cabinet must sign off on deal
* Sale would be lifeline for struggling Rafale
* Defence ministry source: Rafale jet is cheaper, preferred
By Manoj Kumar and Nigam Prusty
NEW DELHI, Jan 31 (Reuters) - France's Rafale emerged on Tuesday as preferred bidder in a $15 billion contest to supply India with 126 fighters, undercutting the rival Eurofighter Typhoon and boosting French hopes of a long-awaited first export contract for its premier combat jet.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy , who lags in opinion polls ahead of April elections, welcomed India's decision to enter exclusive talks with supplier Dassault Aviation and vowed to provide significant technology transfer as India expands its arms industry.
"The realisation of the Rafale project shows the depth and breadth of the strategic partnership between France and India," Sarkozy said in a statement, while French officials avoided declaring outright victory after a series of false export hopes.
India has become the world's largest weapons importer as it seeks to upgrade its largely Soviet-era navy and air force to counter the rising might of China and threats from Pakistan.
"The Rafale gives a huge combat edge to our air force given the situation in our region," said former Indian air force chief Fali Homi Major.
"We cannot say what kind of conflict situation there would be in the region 20 years hence."
If it came off, the deal would be a major shot in the arm for Dassault, which has struggled to find a foreign buyer for the multi-role Rafale, billed as one of the most effective fighters in the world but also one of the most expensive.
Shares in thinly traded stock of Dassault Aviation shot up 22 percent to a more than four-year high of 749 euros after the announcement, which appeared to raise the chances of the first export contract for the French multi-role combat jet.
However, India's Defence Minister A.K. Antony said earlier no deal would be signed before the end of March.
"It is a long process. The file has not come to my table," Antony said, adding that the finance ministry and then a cabinet panel headed by the prime minister had to look at any agreement.
A French source close to the matter said the decision to enter fresh negotiations with lowest-bidder Dassault was a step forward but that no deal had been signed.
Defence analysts said the deal still needed to get through a potentially complex final stage of negotiations in which France's willingness to transfer know-how would be tested to the full.
LONG WAY TO GO
"This is not the end of the road by any stretch of the imagination. This is only the beginning of a second stage of this campaign," said veteran defence analyst Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners brokerage in London.
James Hardy, Asia Pacific specialist at IHS Jane's Defence Weekly said that wrangling over the deal could go on for years.
"Financial pressures on India's government could seriously complicate the chances of this being signed any time soon, in particular the depreciation of the rupee," he said. "That and the standard contractual wrangling that occurs during Indian procurement deals could cause delays stretching to years."
Indian defence ministry sources said the life-time cost of the tender including training and maintenance could reach $15 billion, above previous estimates of around $11 billion.
The sources said the Rafale was preferred because it cost about $5 million less per plane and the Indian airforce is familiar with French warplanes such as the Mirage.
"Unit-wise, the French plane is much cheaper than the Eurofighter. Moreover, the Indian airforce, which is well equipped with French fighters, is favouring the French," said the source, who asked not be named.
In 2011, Dassault won a $1.4 billion contract to upgrade India's Mirage fleet.
In December, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet warned that Dassault would stop production of the Rafale in 2021 if it did not win any export orders.
A deal in the works since 2008 to sell 60 fighters to the United Arab Emirates hit a new snag last year when Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed called Dassault's terms "uncompetitive and unworkable".
The UAE has sought details of the Typhoon, built by the German and Spanish branches of EADS, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Finmeccanica.
Hardy said Dassault's poll position in India was a big blow for Eurofighter.
"The Typhoon was widely tipped to be the favourite and had major political support from the big beasts of the Eurofighter nations," he said. "Both Germany and the U.K. invested a lot of time in pushing the Typhoon so this will hurt."
India rejected American, Russian and Swedish bids in April.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/india-defence-idUSL4E8CV6BG20120131
Sarkozy happy with Rafale selection by India
PTI | 10:01 PM,Jan 31,2012
New Delhi, Jan 31 (PTI) France today said President Nicolas Sarkozy expressed happiness at India's selection of the French fighter aircraft Rafale for acquisition by Indian Indian Air Force and said negotiations for the contract would begin very soon. "The President of the French Republic has learned of Indias selection of the Rafale for the acquisition by the Indian Air Force of 126 fighter aircrafts. France is pleased with Indian governments decision to select the French aircraft to enter into exclusive negotiations with Dassault," said a statement issued by the French Embassy here. It said the announcement comes at the end of "a very high-level, fair and transparent competition" involving two European finalists for the bid. The statement said "negotiations for the contract will begin very soon and has the full support of the French authorities. It will include important technology transfers guaranteed by the French government. "Rafale has been selected, thanks to the aircrafts competitive life-cycle costs, after the April 2011 pre-selection on the basis of its top-level operational performance", it added. "The realisation of the Rafale project will illustrate the depth and scale of the strategic partnership between France and India," the statement said.
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/sarkozy-happy-with-rafale-selection-by-india/958606.html
'We are disappointed': European EADS on losing MMRCA deal
PTI | 10:01 PM,Jan 31,2012
New Delhi, Jan 31 (PTI) After losing out to the French Dassault Rafale the India's biggest-ever military contract for supplying 126 combat aircraft, European EADS today said it was disappointed over the development but respected the Defence Ministry's decision. India today issued a letter to French defence major Dassault informing it that it was the lowest bidder in the tender and would be offered the multi-billion dollar contract for 126 Medium-Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA). "Although this is not yet a contract signature and contract negotiations are still ahead, we are disappointed. However, we respect the decision of the Indian defence Ministry," EADS Cassidian -- the makers of the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft said in a release. The company said that with the Eurofighter Typhoon, it had offered the most modern combat aircraft available to the IAF. "Based on the Indian Government feedback, we will now carefully analyse and evaluate this situation together with our European partner companies and their respective governments," it said. Eurofighter Typhoon is manufactured by a four-nation consortium including the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy and all four governments were backing the bid in the Indian tender.
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/we-are-disappointed-european-eads-on-losing-mmrca-deal/958635.html
Australia Considers Deferring JSF Buy
Deferring : aarzelen, dubben, talmen, weifelen
Melbourne — Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith flagged the possibility that 12 of the 14 Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighters Australia has committed to purchasing may be deferred, following uncertainty within the international program.
The Australian government is already conducting its own review of the JSF program.
Speaking with journalists Jan. 30 during the launch of a force posture review progress report, Smith reaffirmed concerns that the JSF schedule may leave Australia with a capability gap.
Recent comments from U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that he is considering rescheduling the JSF program has prompted further Australian consideration. Last week, Panetta announced that production would be slowed to allow further testing.
"My starting point is straightforward; the U.S. government, which is the purchaser of the single largest number of aircraft, has said in the last few days that it is reviewing the schedule for receipt of the aircraft" said Smith, "and as a result of scheduling and cost issues, I'm doing exactly the same."
Australia has a requirement for up to 100 F-35As, but has only committed to the first 14.
It will take the first two aircraft from low-rate initial production (LRIP) batch 6, which are due to come off the Fort Worth, Texas, production line in 2014. They will initially remain in the U.S. for training.
The other 12 aircraft are due to come from LRIP batches 8 (four aircraft) and 9 (eight aircraft), for delivery between 2015 and 2017, and it is these jets that Smith will consider deferring.
"We are contractually bound to receive two. We remain on track to receive those in 2014, [and] we will now make a judgment about whether the timetable for the second tranche, the 12, remains on the current timetable," he said.
Under the original plan, the 14 aircraft were due to arrive in Australia in 2017 and achieve initial operational capability the following year.
A decision on a second batch of 58 aircraft was due to be made at the end of this year. The two tranches are intended to replace the Royal Australian Air Force's upgraded F/A-18A/B fighters between 2018 and 2020.
A decision on a third batch, to replace Australia's 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets, is due at a later date and dependent upon future decisions regarding the Super Hornet fleet.
Smith announced the earlier review in Washington last July, and an Australian team from the Defence Materiel Organisation visited the assembly plant at Fort Worth and the Joint Project Office in Washington last October and November.
The team undertook its review using "Scheduled Compliance Risk Assessment Methodology," and reported back to Smith at the end of last year. Smith will release his findings during the course of 2012, but says it will be sooner rather than later.
"I'm not going to leave it to the last moment; it won't be late 2012," he told journalists. "We will make a judgment about these matters after an exhaustive review. We will not allow a gap in capability to occur under any circumstances."
If the Australian program is deferred, the door may be open for a further Super Hornet purchase, but Smith says no decisions have been made.
Andrew Davies from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute said, "The important question is whether you can balance a mature JSF capability with an aging Hornet fleet. The government will either need reassurance that the JSF will deliver on time, or it will need to purchase more Super Hornets."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120131/DEFREG03/301310007/Australia-Considers-Deferring-JSF-Buy?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Parachute Issue Grounds Some Lockheed F-35 Jets
Waarom worden er verschillende schietstoelen gebruikt ?? .... Bezuiniging.
Er zijn nu 2 typen :
- Martin Baker US16E
http://www.martin-baker.com/products/Ejection-Seats/Mk--16-high-speed/US16E---JSF.aspx
- Goodrich's ACES 5 (waarschijnlijk alleen in de A-versie's)
http://www.goodrich.com/gr-ext-templating/images/Goodrich%20Content/Business%20Content/Interiors/Products/Specialty%20Seating%20Systems/ACES5%20Data%20Sheet%20for%20website.pdf
WASHINGTON --- The Pentagon grounded six Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets at a California air base due to a problem with the parachutes packed under the pilot's ejection seat, two sources familiar with the issue told Reuters.
Additional F-35 jets being flown at a U.S. Navy air station in Maryland are not affected because they use a different ejection seat, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.
The grounding of the F-35 Air Force variant is more bad news for the $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which faces a third restructuring in three years after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week announced another slowdown in procurement to allow more time for development testing.
Panetta gave no details, but Reuters has quoted sources familiar with the budget plans as saying the Pentagon will postpone buying an additional 179 F-35 jets over the next five years, pushing their procurement off until after fiscal 2017
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=132313&cat=3
Citaat van: Harald op 01/02/2012 | 10:14 uur
Parachute Issue Grounds Some Lockheed F-35 Jets
Waarom worden er verschillende schietstoelen gebruikt ?? .... Bezuiniging.
USAF Looking for Savings in F-35The U.S. Air Force's Air Combat Command has results from a Booz Allen Hamilton study commissioned to explore whether an alternative ejection seat for the Joint Strike Fighter could produce savings over the life of the aircraft for the service.
But the command is neither releasing the study nor discussing its findings. Spokesman say the data is "predecisional" and others suggest the data in the study is proprietary.
However, a source familiar with the results suggests that the study did find savings if the Air Force opts to switch away from the Martin Baker US16E design now planned for all three F-35 variants. The alternative is Goodrich's ACES 5 seat, which is designed from the ACES 2 seat family now operating on F-16, F-15, F-22, B-1 and B-2 aircraft.
At issue for the Air Force, which is slated for now to buy 1,763 F-35As, is whether savings can be garnered through a family of systems approach to ejection seats. Some officials suggest that common training, support, maintenance and management of the seats are worth the switch for the service.
Adding to the rationale is that Goodrich is the sole remaining ejection seat supplier in the United States. The ACES seat family, originally designed by McDonnell Douglas, was later purchased by Goodrich and is now marketed by that company. Without a ride on the F-35, which many say could be the last manned fighter purchased by the U.S. Air Force, Goodrich's ejection seat business could be at its end.
A USAF decision away from the UK-made Martin Baker seat, however, could be viewed as a snub by the Pentagon against its top tier partner, London.
As the largest single buyer of the F-35, an Air Force shift to a new seat is also being seen by some JSF advocates as potentially disruptive during an already precarious time for a program already under the microscope.
As the single largest defense program, the Joint Strike Fighter is under extreme financial scrutiny now. And, its sheer size makes it a sure thing for budget cuts; this leaves F-35 advocates scrambling to protect the project as much as possible. The idea of a new seat is seen as rocking the boat at a time with the need for stability is paramount.
In the meantime, the U.S. military services are combing their portfolios looking for savings. So, if there are indeed savings to be had by adopting a new seat, the Air Force could offer that up as a way to provide value back to the Pentagon and taxpayer. And, perhaps, it could save from having to cut too many tails out of the buy.http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0f45dd8e-78fd-4c0b-98b4-a5651cdf5324&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
General Dynamics Awarded $24 Million F-35 Lightning II Gun System Contract
CHARLOTTE, N.C., Jan. 31, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), was awarded a $23.6 million contract by Lockheed Martin Corp. for production of more than two dozen GAU-22/A gun systems for the F-35 Lightning II.
The GAU-22/A is a derivative of General Dynamics' proven GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun, which the company has produced for more than 40 years. The GAU-22/A is a lighter-weight, four-barrel version with improved accuracy over the GAU-12/U. General Dynamics has been manufacturing GAU-22/A guns for F-35 aircraft since 2009.
"The GAU-22/A's reliability lends a significant advantage in lower aircraft maintenance costs, while the gun's high rate of fire and increased range bring air superiority in tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground combat situations," said Steve Elgin, vice president and general manager of armament systems for General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products.
The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is a fifth-generation multirole fighter used by all branches of the U.S. military and U.S. allies. An internally mounted GAU-22/A gun system will arm the conventional take-off and landing variant (F-35A), while externally mounted gun systems will be used by the short take-off and vertical landing variant (F-35B) and carrier version (F-35C) of the aircraft.
http://investorrelations.gd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=85778&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1654688&highlight=
Granaten voor de GAU-22A :
The Nammo 25 mm APEX projectile is a next-generation armor-piercing, high explosive ammunition designed for use with the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. The projectile leaves the muzzle of the four-barreled GAU-12 weapon system with a velocity of approximately 1,000 m/sec and experiences a peak setback acceleration of almost 80,000 g
Kan dit kanon hetzelfde als wat een A10 kan ?? ...... nee, helaas lijkt me niet
Citaat van: dudge op 01/02/2012 | 11:22 uur
Harald, als je met de kanon referentie aan cas/straving denkt, dan zal het wapen niet hetzelfde kunnen. Maar het vliegtuig ook niet. Lijkt.me dat je dan juist laag en langzaam wil kunnen vliegen, dan kan je het doel langer onder vuur houden. Een f35 wil dat helemaal niet kunnen, Nouja, een beetje dan.
Klopt, maar de F-35 is de A10 opvolger ! .... yeah right, dream on
Pentagon Contract Announcement
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $132,823,284 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0086) to exercise an option for the procurement of 12 EA-18G Lot 36 full rate production airborne electronic attack kits and the associated non-recurring engineering.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132390/boeing-wins-%24133m-for-ea_18g-electronic-attack-kits.html
Weer 12 stuks EA-18G's voor de Navy
Heritage Foundation Arguments In Defense of the F-35 Are Faulty
Last week, Heritage Foundation defense analyst MacKenzie Eaglen published a post on the American Enterprise Institute's blog decrying the Pentagon's plan to slow down its purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter--something a high-level group of Pentagon officials recommended in a report POGO made public last month.
She reveals perhaps her top motivation early on in her short post, warning against "delays [to] the Joint Strike Fighter, by far the most important program to the health of the American defense industrial base."
She adds in her next sentence that "it is truly schizophrenic for the President to be jeopardizing the health of America's defense industrial base." I suppose she believes the Pentagon should continue to hand out blank checks to its defense contractors. Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the JSF, is a funder of Heritage, according to a Counterpunch article by four veteran defense experts.
But later in her brief post she attempts to scare the reader:
"Cutting edge programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter... are all critical programs for a Pacific oriented Pentagon. ... Most reckless of all is the Secretary's decision to cut six tactical aircraft squadrons. A 2009 RAND study has the United States losing an air war over the Taiwan Straits due to an overwhelming Chinese advantage in numbers of aircraft. As our aircraft inventory goes down, this bleak future will only become more likely."
She is right. A smaller force structure would make it more difficult for the U.S. to fight China in a war over Taiwan, especially given their numerical and geographic advantage (the shorter distance they have to fly means more sorties can be generated over the contested area). The problem for the U.S. is a large force is unaffordable given the inordinate per unit expense of weapons like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Lockheed claims that they will get the price down eventually, and the Pentagon assumes somewhat similarly, but some experts are skeptical the price will come down radically.
But the qualitative "advantage" of the F-35 isn't what Eaglen might assume either given her support for the plane and her mention of the RAND study. What she may not know is, in 2008, briefing slides examining a potential U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan in light of lessons learned in air combat in the past by RAND analyst John Stillion leaked out. What was perhaps most explosive about his analysis was his criticism of the F-35, which would likely be the U.S. tactical aircraft workhorse in the scenario he analyzed.
Stillion wrote that the "F-35A is 'Double Inferior' relative to modern Russian/Chinese fighter designs in visual range combat."
Furthermore, it has "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, inferior sustained turn capability" and it "Also has lower top speed." Given all this, it "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run."
It doesn't do well compared to some of the legacy aircraft it is replacing either, according to his presentation slides. The F-35 is optimized for a strike mission, "not air-to-air maneuvering combat." Its "Thrust loading is significantly inferior to F-15, F-16 and F-22," which means it has "Slower acceleration, slower climb, more energy bleed in tight turns." Plus, according to Stillion, its "Wing loading is high –comparable to F-105" (this is a not a compliment) so it is "Less agile and requires higher thrust to maintain a given turn radius and speed."
Think stealth and beyond visual range combat (i.e. the use of sensors and long-range missiles versus close-in visual range combat) will change the equation in the U.S.'s favor? Perhaps somewhat, but not anywhere close to as much as the rosy estimates presume, according to Stillion. Despite the technology fixation by many within the U.S. defense establishment, pilot training, initiative, aircraft maneuverability, and other factors often can be more important in an actual war. On a few of his slides regarding U.S. bombing planning in World War II versus reality, Stillion notes, "It is easy for even large groups of smart people to get important assumptions wrong."
After these briefing slides leaked out, although they were noted by a few U.S. defense journalists, they created a furor in Australia's Parliament, which was assessing Australia's participation in the JSF program. Stillion was let go at RAND. A member of Australia's Parliament said in a press release, "There are suggestions in some quarters that he was dismissed over the document and that his removal was ordered by the US military."
RAND distanced itself from Stillion's briefing, releasing a statement:
"Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."
Even if Stillion's assessment of the JSF was not an official RAND analysis, it's hard to dismiss his judgments out of hand.
But the most important point is that the uncritical defense of the JSF is not helpful.
Is it too expensive and a dog of a plane in certain key situations? We need to know, but it seems some don't want to even ask the question.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132389/f_35-catches-more-flak-as-backer-shot-down.html
French Rafale UAE deal back on-report
Thu Feb 2, 2012 1:09pm EST
* La Tribune says Sarkozy could seal $10 bln deal by April
* Win in the UAE could pave way for Qatar, Kuwait
Feb 2 (Reuters) - France could seal a long-awaited deal for Dassault to sell at least 60 Rafale fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates by April, turning around what appeared to have been a lost cause, French newspaper La Tribune reported on Thursday.
The French-built jet emerged on Tuesday as preferred bidder in a $15 billion contest to supply India with 126 warplanes, lifting hopes for a sale that would boost French national pride and restore the lustre of its aviation sector.
Citing unidentified sources, the paper said on its website that President Nicolas Sarkozy would go to the UAE in March or early April when the contract is likely to be finalised.
The deal, potentially worth $10 billion has been in the works since 2008, but was thrown into doubt in November when the world's fourth-largest oil exporter said the proposed terms were "uncompetitive and unworkable." It asked for details of a rival aircraft, the Typhoon built by the Eurofighter consortium.
"Everything has been unlocked (between the UAE and Dassault)," an unidentified source told La Tribune.
A French government source told Reuters that Paris was waiting to hear from the Emirates this month. Dassault and the Defence Ministry declined to comment.
Sarkozy scored a commercial coup with the announcement this week that years of lobbying had pushed India close to buying the Rafale and will look to make political gains ahead of April's presidential election in which he is lagging in the polls behind Socialist rival Francois Hollande.
The UAE has pressed for the aircraft's engines to be upgraded with extra thrust and for better radar, industry sources have said.
La Tribune said there were a few technical details still to be ironed out, but that they were easy to resolve. It added that as part of the deal Paris would take back the Emirates' existing Dassault-made Mirage fighters.
Speaking after the India announcement, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet hinted there could be more deals ahead.
"Good news are like worries, they fly in squadrons," he said. "That (deal) is the start of a squadron of good news."
A French win in the UAE could also lead to further contracts in the Gulf Arab region which shares the West's concerns that Iran is using its nuclear energy programme to develop weapons, a charge Tehran has denied. Saudi Arabia inked a deal for U.S. arms worth nearly $60 billion a year ago.
Qatar, a close French ally, said last year it wanted to replace its fleet of Mirage fighter jets during 2012 possibly buying 24 to 36 units. Kuwait in 2010 said it was also considering buying Rafales to replace its ageing Mirage fleet.
According to analysts the Gulf countries are looking to have the same aircraft for inter-operability reasons as well as differentiating themselves from Gulf power house Saudi Arabia, which uses U.S. Boeing-built F-15s.
"My wish is that the UAE makes a decision that allows two neighbours that want inter-operability with it to make decisions," Longuet said in January when asked about potential contracts in Qatar and Kuwait.
"If they get the feeling no decision is taken they will look elsewhere. For now they are interested, but they will only really be if the first one takes a leap."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/02/france-emirates-rafale-idUSL5E8D26WQ20120202
A simple matter of buying a fighter jet
Successful execution of even relatively simple tasks eludes India. Its Great Power ambitions are way out of line from its abilities today
Siddharth Singh
On Tuesday, a decade after India decided to equip itself with a new fighter jet—replacing the MiG-21 —the process acquired a sense of finality. For all practical purposes, the French Dassault Rafale is the government's choice. Each step of the journey—from the initial request for information (RFI) in 2001 to the announcement of Dassault as the lowest bidder—highlights interesting weaknesses in the country's defence equipment procurement process in particular and strategic thinking in general.
Consider the timeline first. By early 1990s, the backbone of the Indian Air Force (IAF), the MiG-21, had outlived its utility. Apart from outdated avionics and weapon systems, the large number of crashes led to doubts about the jet's airworthiness. By that time, the Pakistan air force had been operating F-16s for at least six to seven years. The MiG-21 is no match for the F-16. Yet, it took another decade for the RFI to be issued. In all, more than a quarter century will have elapsed between the realization that new planes were required and the first flight of an IAF Rafale across the Indian sky.
That is not all. By the time the full complement of 126 aircraft is in place, the Rafale would be an "outdated" plane. Early last year, China carried out the first flight of its fifth-generation, stealth fighter, the Chengdu J-20. The J-20 is expected to be inducted in the Chinese air force by 2020. Like the MiG-21 vs F-16 comparison, equating the Rafale with the J-20 is, perhaps, unfair. But that's the point missed in the entire acquisition process. A country does not buy weapons for current use—those requirements have to be met by the existing stock of weapons—but for future contingencies. That requires careful, and imaginative, planning about future scenarios. While the country's armed forces—the users of weapons—are keenly aware about these developments, the buyer—the government—is in a time warp. By 2020, India will need a different type of fighter jet—a fifth-generation plane. While India has begun the process to acquire a fifth-generation fighter, it is an open question if by 2020, that plane will be in service with the IAF.
This problem could have been avoided easily during the ongoing process. The US had offered India the F-16 and F-18 planes as medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). India rejected those aircraft and for good reasons. With a little bit of imagination, it could have tweaked the MMRCA contract, imparting it a futuristic direction. The year 2005 marked the high-tide of the Indo-US relations. The civilian nuclear deal had just been agreed on; the countries were truly on the path to a strategic relationship—unlike the phoney expression it has become now—and high-level political negotiations on defence ties would have imparted it greater depth. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the country's national security leadership could have held a sustained dialogue and asked the Americans for the F-22 Raptor—a fifth-generation fighter. Whether the Americans gave us those planes or not, an effort should have been made to get them and the ball thrown in the US' court. Had that happened, it would have given India an air power edge and lifted it above the ruck of countries in the region. What needs emphasis here is that chasing equipment made in the US does not mean slavish acceptance of what it dishes out (clearly the F-16 and F-18 are goods past their sell-by date) but getting the most out of such deals. If buying jets from the US helps India further its political interests, then they should have been bought. Period.
That, however, would have required geopolitical imagination and discarding doubts about friendship with the US. Historically, India has never had that kind of leadership. India simply does not have the institutions that enable the grooming of such leaders. The National Security Council—established in 1998—is now another sarkari department. The one place where such ideas could have flourished—universities—seldom produce scholarly work that can spur strategic imagination—in leaders and citizens alike. The contrast with China is marked. While the latter rediscovers its ancient strategic roots (see Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power by Yan Xuetong, Princeton University Press 2011), powers ahead with its defence modernization plans and, in general, exhibits a confident worldview, India is busy creating roadblocks on the path to its progress. Even relatively simple matters such as sharing river waters with Bangladesh have been blocked by regional leaders like Mamata Banerjee. It is one thing to hanker for a position on the global high table, but an entirely different matter to create conditions to achieve that goal.
To be fair, it is easy to overlook the fact that it is for the first time in two millennia that India—as an independent entity, that is—is enjoying geographic unity, something that has been imagined culturally for long but has existed politically for less than 70 years. Under these conditions, the required imagination—at the level where it is needed most, among policymakers—will always be in deficit. At the operational level, it leads to a sense of timelessness: the false belief that adversaries will exhibit behaviour similar to one's own; that perspective plans on paper will automatically bear fruit and, generally, that opportunities always abound. The acquisition of aircraft whose utility in the future will be limited is only one aspect of this much greater weakness.
http://www.livemint.com/2012/02/02125454/A-simple-matter-of-buying-a-fi.html
Voor het gemak... vergeet de auteur van dit stuk dat er in India ook nog eens 250 PAK-FA's zullen instromen na 2020.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/02/2012 | 19:20 uur
French Rafale UAE deal back on-report
En zo kan het raar lopen, werd er in december 2011 nog gesproken over het einde van het Rafale progamma nadat de laatse kist aan Frankrijk zou zijn gelevert in 2018/19.
Februari 2012, krap een maand later, en het ziet er voor de Rafale opeens een stuk zonniger uit.
Het zou maar zo kunnen dat in dit jaar voor meer dan 250 kisten wordt getekend (India, VAE, Quatar, Kuwait en Brazilië, met daarbij nog eens meer dan 120 in optie, tel hierbij op de 180 Franse kisten en we kunnen opeens spreken van een collectieve Rafale vloot van meer dan 550 kisten.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/02/2012 | 19:24 uur
Voor het gemak... vergeet de auteur van dit stuk dat er in India ook nog eens 250 PAK-FA's zullen instromen na 2020.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/02/2012 | 19:24 uur
By 2020, India will need a different type of fighter jet—a fifth-generation plane. While India has begun the process to acquire a fifth-generation fighter, it is an open question if by 2020, that plane will be in service with the IAF.
;)
Ik vind het eerder enorm delusional van de schrijver om ook maar de illusie te opperen dat India misschien over de F-22 had kunnen beschikken. Nee, de Indiase regering heeft dat destijds m.i. wel degelijk goed ingeschat want die kans was nagenoeg 0,0%.
Verder wordt het Chinese vijfde generatievliegtuig weer eens naar voren gehaalt en volgens mij heb ik deze schrijver dat wel eerder zien doen, maar volgens mij weet eigenlijk nog niemand buiten het Chinese militaire apparaat en de top van het Chinese militaire complex wat dat toestel eigenlijk moet kunnen en wat haar rol zal zijn. Evenmin is er iets bekend over of het die capaciteiten ook maar enigszins benaderd en zal men ook daar tegen grote problemen en vertraging aanlopen alhoewel die in geen verhouding zullen staan met hoe dat hier in het Westen met bijv. de JSF en de Typhoon is gegaan. Op sommige vlakken heeft een absolute regeringsvorm nu eenmaal zijn voordelen, hetzij zo.
Verder de nieuwste versie van de F-18 als volledig achterhaalt en de Rafale tussen 2020-2025 ook al als niet meer van die tijd kwantificeren is denk ik niet reeel als je naar de concurrenten van India in de regio en net daarbuiten kijkt. Alsof China haar hele luchtmacht met J20's zal gaan uitrusten en die er in 2025 al in vele honderden zijn :angel:.
Citaat van: dudge op 02/02/2012 | 20:54 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/02/2012 | 20:23 uur
En zo kan het raar lopen, werd er in december 2011 nog gesproken over het einde van het Rafale progamma nadat de laatse kist aan Frankrijk zou zijn gelevert in 2018/19.
Februari 2012, krap een maand later, en het ziet er voor de Rafale opeens een stuk zonniger uit.
Het zou maar zo kunnen dat in dit jaar voor meer dan 250 kisten wordt getekend (India, VAE, Quatar, Kuwait en Brazilië, met daarbij nog eens meer dan 120 in optie, tel hierbij op de 180 Franse kisten en we kunnen opeens spreken van een collectieve Rafale vloot van meer dan 550 kisten.
Het was wel te verwachten dat een deal met India in de toestellen goed zou doen.
Voorlopig blijven het speculaties. Wel is te verwachten dat bijv. de UAE deal nu (eindelijk) geconcretiseerd kan worden.
Wat dat betreft is het ook zo, sales zorgen voor sales. Ik ben benieuwd wat er allemaal nog in de pijplijn zit. Ik zou in ieder geval niet alles dit jaar verwachten, maar kansen zijn er zeker.
Oh, zeker en voor de Rafale is dit echt heel goed nieuws. Ik ben er ook wel blij om eerlijk gezegd. Ik denk dat het gewoon een goed vliegtuig is. Was er in Koeweit ook niet een tender gepland?
Citaat van: dudge op 02/02/2012 | 20:54 uur
Ik zou in ieder geval niet alles dit jaar verwachten, maar kansen zijn er zeker.
Ik verwacht niet alles in 2012 maar wel de formalisering in India (126 + 63 in optie), Uit diverse bronnen lijkt de VAE (60) dit voorjaar haar definitieve keuze te maken en heeft Brazilië aangegeven om ook dit jaar de knoop door te hakken (36 + 64 in optie).
Vwb Brazilië, hier zijn natuurlijk nog 3 modellen (F18E, Gripen NG en Rafale) in de race. Opvallend is de extra inspanning die Frankrijk nu laat zien in Brazilië maar ook de aanstaande gesprekken op hoog niveau tussen India en Brazilë op verder gaande samenwerking op defensie gebied.
Kortom, voor de gelijkwaardigheid van Europese gevechtsvliegtuigenfabrikanten is het nu de buurt aan Saab, want met 100 E/F's (Zweden) en 22 voor Zwitserland wordt het wel een zwakke basis om te continuïteit te waarborgen.
JSF Testing Finds Additional Problems
Feb 2, 2012
By Bill Sweetman
Washington
1 2 Next Page >>
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2012/02/01/DT_02_01_2012_p41-416284.xml&headline=JSF%20Testing%20Finds%20Additional%20Problems&prev=10
Following on the Indian deal, France expects Brazil will purchase Rafale fighter jets
French Defence minister Gerard Longuet said that following on the deal to sell 126 Dassault Rafale fighter jets to India, Paris is hopeful it can seal a similar contract with Brazil.
"Brazilians did the right thing, first and above all they purchased submarines (from France) which is what they most needed", pointed out Longuet adding that what is now pending is the tender for the fighters for which France and the Rafale are competing the US and Sweden.
Earlier in the day French newspaper La Tribune reported on Thursday that France would seal a long-awaited deal for Dassault to sell at least 60 Rafale fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates by April, "turning around what appeared to have been a lost cause".
The Rafale this week appeared as the preferred bidder in a plus 15 billion dollars contest to supply India with 126 warplanes, lifting hopes for a sale that would boost French national pride and restore the lustre of its aviation sector.
La Tribune said on its website that President Nicolas Sarkozy would go to the UAE in March or early April when the contract is likely to be finalised.
The deal, potentially worth 10 billion dollars has been in the works since 2008, but was thrown into doubt in November when the world's fourth-largest oil exporter said the proposed terms were "uncompetitive and unworkable." It asked for details of a rival aircraft, the Typhoon built by the Eurofighter consortium.
A French government source said that Paris was waiting to hear from the Emirates this month. The UAE has pressed for the aircraft's engines to be upgraded with extra thrust and for better radar, industry sources have said.
La Tribune said there were a few technical details still to be ironed out, but that they were easy to resolve. It added that as part of the deal Paris would take back the Emirates' existing Dassault-made Mirage fighters.
Speaking after the India announcement, French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet hinted there could be more deals ahead.
"Good news is like worries, they fly in squadrons," he said. "That (deal) is the start of a squadron of good news."
A French win in the UAE could also lead to further contracts in the Gulf Arab region which shares the West's concerns that Iran is using its nuclear energy programme to develop weapons, a charge Tehran has denied. Saudi Arabia inked a deal for U.S. arms worth nearly $60 billion a year ago.
Qatar, a close French ally, said last year it wanted to replace its fleet of Mirage fighter jets during 2012 possibly buying 24 to 36 units. Kuwait in 2010 said it was also considering buying Rafales to replace its ageing Mirage fleet.
According to analysts the Gulf countries are looking to have the same aircraft for inter-operability reasons as well as differentiating themselves from Gulf power house Saudi Arabia, which uses U.S. Boeing-built F-15s.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/03/following-on-the-indian-deal-france-expects-brazil-will-purchase-rafale-fighter-jets
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/02/2012 | 06:59 uur
JSF Testing Finds Additional Problems
Feb 2, 2012
By Bill Sweetman
Washington
1 2 Next Page >>
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2012/02/01/DT_02_01_2012_p41-416284.xml&headline=JSF%20Testing%20Finds%20Additional%20Problems&prev=10
Hier een Quote uit het hierbovenstaande stuk van Bill Sweetman :
Another lesson for future planners and requirement-writers: a number of JSF problems are related to features that were included in hopes that they would reduce cost, or because they were "nice-to-have" capabilities that appealed to the end-user. An example of the latter is the "through the airframe" view to be provided by the infrared, spherical-coverage Distributed Aperture System and the helmet-mounted display, which was made a KPP, but has proved far more difficult and expensive than expected, and a major problem since the aircraft has no fixed head-up display. En wat lazen we in de "Brief van Hillen" van d.d. 02-02-2012 in het Topic "vervanging huidige F-16 Deel 6" een brief van Dhr Health (Vice President) van Lockheed Martin dat alles goed ging met HMDS (Helmet Mounted Display System).
Maar .... dit zijn tegenstrijdige berichten ?? ..... Tja, er worden over 2 verschillende dingen gepraat, ja ... want , ....
Een HMDS wordt tegenwoordig veel gebruikt ook op onze helmen, dus niets nieuws, maar ... de JSF zou DAS krijgen.
Met DAS kun je virtueel door de bodem en vliegtuig kijken zodat je een 360 graden view krijgt. Maximale situation awearness. Tevens de F-35 heeft geen head-up display, dus moet alle fitale informatie gepresenteerd krijgen in zijn helm.
Maar helaas heeft het DAS-helm systeem ernstige problemen en tekortkomingen. Belangrijkste probleem is dat er een vertraging zit tussen de kijk beweging en de werkelijkheid, waarschijnlijk te maken met de verwerken van de gegevens en het laten zien van de gegevens in beeld vorm.
Dus straks in de state-of -the-art F-35 een "gewone HMDS" met toch een HUD ?
Dus geen DAS, geen 360 graden view. Maar dan moet de HUD nog wel ingebouwd worden en daar is eigenlijk geen rekening mee gehouden in de cockpit-indeling.
Weer een "noviteit" die problemen opleverd, waarvan altijd gezegd wordt dat het beter is dan de concurenten (verkoop-praatje van 2001 en 2008), maar ... HET WERKT NIET !!
USAF Turning to Flexible Multirole Aircraft
As the U.S. Air Force shrinks, multirole aircraft are going to play an ever larger role in the service's inventory, the air arm's top civilian official said.
The service's strategy "favors retaining multirole capabilities going forward," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Feb. 2. "The tactical air forces are going to get smaller and still be required to address a broad spectrum of threats."
Donley, who was speaking at an Air Force Association-sponsored breakfast, cited the ubiquitous Lockheed Martin-built F-16 Fighting Falcon as an aircraft that will be protected. Conversely, the Air Force is divesting itself of five squadrons of single-role A-10 Warthog close air support planes — about a third of its fleet.
Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., said the Air Force was forced into the decision by "the tyranny of sustainment costs."
The service can't afford the cost of maintaining fleets of specialized aircraft, he said. But not having specialized aircraft might mean the service ends up with planes capable of performing many missions but not doing any particularly well, Goure said.
"That's what the F-35 is relative to the F-22," he said. The F-35 is a multirole stealth fighter jet, while the Raptor is a purpose-built air-to-air killer par excellence.
Moreover, new aircraft, such as the Air Force's new bomber, are going to be built to do many missions, but they might not be well optimized for any particular mission, Goure said. But investment in advanced subsystems and weapons may overcome many shortcomings.
"The enablers and weapons need to be even better to make up for the loss of capability in the platform," he said.
Given the delays on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Air Force will modernize the F-16, Donley said. About 350 F-16s will be given added capabilities and have their airframe lives extended.
Extending the service life of the F-16 is cheaper than buying new versions of the Fighting Falcon, Donley said. When asked if he could consider buying new versions of the venerable jet, Donley flatly replied: "No."
Nor will the Air Force or Defense Department budge from the overall number of tri-service F-35 aircraft they want to buy from the current total of 2,443. While the Defense Department might make short-term adjustments, Donley reiterated the Pentagon's full commitment to the program.
"I'd like to put this to bed as well as I can today," he said. "The decisions about the size of the F-35 fleet, we've made no changes in that. Those are decisions for the 2020s."
Making any such changes now would have no bearing on forthcoming budget cuts because the bulk of those buys falls outside the next five-year defense plan or even the next 10 years, Donley said.
But shifting to aircraft that can do more than one mission is not limited to the tactical fighter fleet. Donley said the reason the C-27 light turboprop transport will not only be canceled but existing aircraft retired is because the C-130 is more versatile.
"C-27 is another prominent program where we think we have good alternatives," Donley said. "We have demonstrated the ability of the C-130 to support the direct-support mission."
With a smaller fleet, the Air Force needs to maintain common aircraft configurations. Donley cited efforts to bring the service's F-22 Raptors to a common configuration as one example. Others include the remaining fleet of upgraded C-5M Galaxy strategic airlifters, the extended-range C-17 strategic airlifters, Boeing's F-15C fighter and the F-16, he said.
"Common configurations will give us operational flexibility," Donley said.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120202/DEFREG02/302020007/USAF-Turning-Flexible-Multirole-Aircraft?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Italy committed to F-35 programme but may cut order
By: Luca Peruzzi
Italy is aiming to slash €1.45 billion ($1.9 billion) from its defence procurement spending in 2012, with its plan to acquire 131 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIs likely to be in the firing line.
It previously indicated it would order a total of 131 of the type - 69 conventional take-off and landing F-35As and 62 of the short take-off and vertical landing variant F-35B. However, more recently, defence sources have suggested a reduction to the total order of between 20-30 units, with the majority of these F-35Bs.
The procurement has come under fire in the Italian parliament for its anticipated total cost of €17.4 billion, with €2 billion already spent on the acquisition.
Despite the possible cuts to its purchase, Italy remains a key stakeholder in the Joint Strike Fighter's industrial team.
Giampaolo di Paola, the country's defence minister, on 30 January visited the site of the final assembly and check-out (FACO) facility for the JSF under construction at Cameri air base, near Novara in the north of the country.
The previous week, a Lockheed team headed by Tom Burbage, F-35 executive vice-president and general manager of programme integration, visited Rome to meet with Italy's industrial and government representatives.
The 60,000m² (646,000ft²) FACO, which incudes 20 new buildings and attendant infrastructure, is planned to be operational by the end of 2012. It will deliver the first Italian JSF, an F-35A, roughly two years later, said Burbage. The aircraft will then transfer to the USA to support the training of Italian air force pilots.
The site is earmarked to assemble and deliver around 80 F-35As for the Royal Netherlands Air Force in addition to those for Rome. It will also have the capacity to develop a maintenance, repair and overhaul and upgrade capability at a later stage.
The facility will also include Alenia Aermacchi's assembly line for wing section units, which is expected to produce around 1,200 kits for the nine-nation programme through to 2023.
Including Alenia Aermacchi, around 20 Italian companies are due to be involved in the F-35 programme.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italy-committed-to-f-35-programme-but-may-cut-order-367733/
Rafale: Why it is the last plane standing
February 3, 2012
Rakesh Krishnan Simha
Big-ticket defence deals are rarely based on technical merit alone. The French-built Rafale isn't the first – nor will it be the last – aircraft to be picked for geopolitical or strategic reasons.
Rafale means gust in French. Source: ITAR-TASS
Warped games
When diplomatic hardsell failed, did France and Britain choreograph the air war on Libya to showcase their aircraft in a bid to influence India's decision on the fighter aircraft deal?
Let's not get outraged here. For the West, war is a small price to pay if it can help win some orders for their beleaguered companies. After all, there's no better hardsell than real combat.
The air war over Libya lasted nearly three months. This despite the entire resources of NATO coming into play against a tiny country of just over six million people. In fact, it came to a stage where NATO ran out of ammunition and Qatar had to open up its armoury for the Western air forces.
The prolonged war served two purposes. One, surgical strikes on Libya's cities destroyed bridges, roads, communication services, schools, hospitals and entire blocks of Government offices.
Secondly, the war became a theatre to showcase the latest weapons. Libya, one of the most stable countries in the Arab world, became a live firing range. UK-based Defence Analysis commented on this at the height of the bombing campaign. "The war in Libya is turning into the best shop window for competing aircraft for years; more even than in Iraq in 2003," said its editor Francis Tusa. "You are seeing for the first time in an operation the Typhoon and the Rafale up against each other, and both countries want to place an emphasis on exports."
A former defence export official with a NATO country agreed. "As soon as an aircraft or weapon is used on operational deployment, that instantly becomes a major marketing ploy; it becomes 'proven in combat'," he told Reuters.
The Libyan operation marked the combat debut for the Typhoon. Both the Rafale and Typhoon pounded Libya day and night, a mission that led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians and destroyed infrastructure on a major scale. You have to admit it is a neat little game: destroy-occupy-rebuild-bill.
What was being played out in Libya was a Kafkaesque saga – French Rafales bombing the Libyan Air Force's French Mirages, which French President Nicholas Sarkozy had agreed to modernise. And the Typhoons had just a year before the war, taken part in a Libyan air show attended by Muammar Gaddafi's generals.
According to TIME magazine's Battleland blog the Indians were watching NATO's Libyan operations with interest. That, however, is debatable. The IAF wouldn't really care about data on the heroics of Rafale and Typhoon pilots against a defenceless city.
Gaddafi: Expendable
There simply was no other reason for bombing Gaddafi. The late Libyan leader had patched up with the West in the recent past. He had handed over the blueprints for a rudimentary nuclear weapon sold to him by the Pakistanis; paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the families of the Lockerbie victims; and signed major defence deals with the same countries that later bombed his country.
So why couldn't they go ahead and sell Rafales and Typhoons to Gaddafi? Well, how many planes could he have bought? Ten? Twenty? Not more. The Indians may end up buying up to 186 – worth nearly $17 billion. That's enough to keep the French armaments industry humming for a decade.
Advantage India
So did India make a costly mistake? Only someone with blinkers on would say the Rafale is unworthy of being conducted into the IAF. The highly professional IAF (which operates over 700 aircraft and is the fourth largest air force after the US, Russia and China) had listed 600 parameters during the selection process, with 590 being the pass mark; anything less than that and the Rafale would have been shot down.
Some commentators have argued that by handing over the contract to a geopolitical lightweight like France, India lost a huge opportunity to secure strategic benefits from the US. But this argument has no legs. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, India will splurge $80 billion on defence imports over the next five years. At a time when unemployment and hunger are widespread in the West, India's huge civilian and defence markets are cushioning Western companies from a hard landing. Therefore, India doesn't have to keep America happy; rather Washington will have to learn the art of being on good terms with New Delhi.
At any rate, the US has bagged several mega deals from India – the C-130 Super Hercules, C-17 Globemaster and P-3 Orion – and a troop landing ship. Russia has also got huge orders for corvettes, frigates, destroyers, a N-submarine, an aircraft carrier and the fifth generation T-50 stealth fighter-bomber. So the big two have little to complain about.
Rafale vs the Rest
There are some who say India should have gone for the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 Lightning. Failing that, India should have gone for the MiG-35 or Typhoon.
A few problems here. First up, the Raptor's export is banned by US federal law. There is no way the US can sell it outside even if it wanted to. Besides, at $412 million each, it is a horrendously overpriced aircraft. For every hour it is in the air, the plane spends more than 30 hours in maintenance.
The US Defense Department says an average of just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding US airspace. And we are talking peacetime missions. Incredibly, America's premier air superiority fighter, which has been in service since 2005, has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan independent American watchdog, has rubbished the US Air Force's claim that the F-22 will "have better reliability and maintainability than any fighter aircraft in history". "More procurement of the F-22 isn't smart strategically or financially," it says.
Another myth floating around is that the Rafale will fare poorly if it goes into combat against the F-22. However, the question of an encounter with the Raptor does not arise simply because the Raptor is stationed for the defence of the continental United States. Last heard, India had no plans to invade America.
Lighting fails to strike
The F-35 Lightning, a stripped down version of the F-22, is still several years away from delivery, and is currently facing a range of problems, including potentially crippling design, power and range limitations. Plus, it has a long line of – mostly unconvinced – customers, including Israel, South Korea, the UK, Japan, Italy, Spain and even Australia; India can't hope to jump the queue. At any rate, the Russian T-50 (with some Indian inputs) will be superior to the F-22 so the IAF doesn't need an interim stealth fighter. Certainly not the poor man's F-22.
MiG-35: Deja vu
A true dogfight duke, the MiG-35 should have aced the test. But it failed to make it because it isn't a new platform, based as it is on the MiG-29 of which India has several squadrons. The Russian plane, despite all its proven abilities, never really excited the IAF. Plus, with 70 percent of its fighter planes being of Russian origin, the IAF was keen on a Western fighter, just to have some balance. Call it a case of aviation deja vu.
Typhoon: Flying on bribes
The Typhoon made it to the finals but is embroiled in bribe scandals in every market it has entered – Saudi Arabia, Czech Republic, South Africa, Romania and Tanzania. It is alleged the Brits had a multi-million pound "slush fund" offering bribes to members of the Saudi royal family and government officials.
(British MPs were reportedly "hysterical" after India's decision to award the contract to France. While the Labour Party's Barry Gardiner called for "downgrading" of India-UK trade relations, other parliamentary fat cats spoke about India's "ingratitude" and demanded that it rethink the decision. Clearly, despite their lightweight status, the British haven't lost their colonial hangover.)
Rafale: Gust of fresh air
Under these circumstances, the Rafale, which means gust in French, seems like the perfect choice. The contract has a 50 percent offset clause built into it. Which means the deal will bring $8 billion in French high-tech into India's defence production sector. Complete transfer of technology is mandatory so cutting-edge knowhow can be transferred to India's own advanced fighter programme.
Dassault was prepared to down the shutters of the Rafale plant if they had lost, so right now they are over the moon. "We have waited 30 years for this," said a visibly relieved Sarkozy. In fact, the French will now be more than happy to transfer the Rafale's full technology suite to India, and perhaps throw in the Eiffel Tower, too, for good measure.
Also, the IAF's fleet of 51 French made Mirage 2000s boasts an impeccable safety record over the past 30 years. They are likely to serve a further 15 years after an upgrade. Clearly, the French can be trusted to supply a decent aircraft.
Rakesh Krishnan Simha is a New Zealand-based writer. He has previously worked with leading Indian publications like Businessworld, India Today and Hindustan Times.
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/02/03/rafale_why_it_is_the_last_plane_standing_14721.html
February 3, 2012, 2:53 PM GMT
EADS Still Waiting in the Wings
Executives at Dassault Aviation, Thales and Safran may have cracked open the champagne this week when the Indian government chose Dassault's Rafale multirole combat aircraft over the Anglo-German-Italian Eurofighter to supply the Indian Air Force with 126 jets. But like Grand Prix racing, one podium finish doesn't a champion make.
To be sure, the news that Dassault and New Delhi are now in exclusive talks about delivering the Rafale was welcome for the French. Dassault has still to win an export contract for a plane that the company is marketing as a Swiss army knife for the world's air forces, capable of air-air, air-ground and land and carrier-based roles.
But Dassault has been here before. Over the years, it has been reported to be in the final stages of winning contracts with South Korea, Morocco, Switzerland, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates only to see these deals disappear like a desert mirage.
Not only that, the Indian defense ministry says the proposal by Dassault involving a technology transfer on an unprecedented scale for the plane maker was cheaper than the Eurofighter. That raised some eyebrows in French government circles where at least one minister has said that, while the Rafale may be the most sophisticated combat aircraft on the market, its complexity comes at a price.
Indeed, in international arms deals of this magnitude, it's not clear what the notion of "price" is.
The tough negotiating on the Indian contract starts now, and it could take six months to a year to iron all the details, especially those governing technology transfer. The deal as it stands calls for Dassault to supply the first 18 planes out of a total of 126 off the shelf while India is setting up a production line for the rest.
The Team Rafale negotiating the finer points of the deal comprises specialists from Dassault, Thales (which supplies radars and avionics) and Safran (which makes the two M88 engines). The issue of how much technology can be transferred without risk to the loss of intellectual property will be central in these talks.
It remains to be seen how much technology India's aeronautical industry can absorb, especially as the three French contractors may be obliged to offer offsets equivalent to 50% of the estimated $10 billion to $15 billion value of the contract.
Indian defense company Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, which is likely to get the work, already has its work cut out managing cooperation programs with many other aircraft manufacturers, notably Russia's Sukhoi with whom it is developing a new fighter jet.
Meanwhile, local rules in India forbid foreign companies from owning more than 26% of a joint-venture. The Rafale contract, even if it materializes, could also disappoint for other reasons further down the runway.
Doing business in India is notoriously difficult for foreign companies. According to a World Bank survey, India is second only to East Timor in its poor record for enforcing contracts.
Then there are the losers. Dassault can expect considerable interference from its competitors as they try to derail the French bid. U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament this week that he will do everything he can to get the Indian government to change its mind and buy the Eurofighter Typhoon made by BAE Systems, European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co and Italy's Alenia Aeromacchi, a unit of Finmeccanica.
Whatever the outcome, EADS is a winner of sorts from the Indian competition. It owns 46.3% of Dassault Aviation, and it has a 46% stake in the Eurofighter consortium, acting as the prime bidder for the Indian contract. Still, this is an expensive way of winning new business.
http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2012/02/03/eads-still-waiting-in-the-wings/?mod=google_news_blog
Fighter deals intensify global aerial arms race
By Rhys Jones and Tim Hepher
Feb 3 (Reuters) - Big decisions on warplane purchases by Japan and India have intensified competition in the multi-billion-dollar global market, with Western defense firms scrambling for orders in Asia and the Middle East as their home-country budgets shrivel.
Growing international unease over China's military build-up and ongoing tensions between Iran and Western allies in the Gulf, coupled with the deep pockets of nations basking in high commodity prices, have sparked a surge of interest in air power.
"There is a strong emphasis on... combat aircraft and things that belong to them: missiles, bombs, support aircraft, airborne early warning systems, air tankers and that kind of stuff," said Siemon Wezeman, senior researcher on arms transfers at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's biggest arms contractor, and France's Dassault Aviation are the major winners in a pair of widely watched procurement decisions in the past month, dealing a blow to competitors such as the four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing Co's F/A-18 Super Hornet, defense industry experts say.
Lockheed was buoyed by Japan's $7 billion decision to buy 42 F-35 stealth fighter jets in December, providing a shot in the arm for a project under fire over costs and struggling to hold together a coalition of foreign partners.
Japan's selection means South Korea is very likely to follow suit, analysts said. Seoul last week invited Lockheed, Eurofighter and Boeing to bid in a $7 billion contest for what is expected to be an order for 60 advanced fighter jets.
Companies are also eyeing opportunities in Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.
India rescued French hopes of an elusive first export deal for its front-line jet by agreeing this week to enter exclusive negotiations to buy 126 Dassault-built Rafales after narrowing the field to an all-European contest with Typhoon.
The Rafale has lost a series of contests to U.S. competition and has held so far fruitless talks with Brazil and UAE.
"A victory in India would bring the Rafale right back into the running. Whether this guarantees contracts elsewhere is less certain, but if it didn't win it was guaranteed not to get anything else," said Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis.
With most NATO nations cutting back on defense procurement projects, the imminent award of fighter jet contracts comes at a good time for military contractors desperate for deals.
Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group consultancy projects $178 billion in worldwide fighter deliveries through 2021.
Critics say such sales can provoke rather than prevent instability.
Western defence firms saw their market values tumble last year after the impact of spending cuts started to filter through.
Britain's BAE Systems, a partner in the Typhoon alongside EADS and Finmeccanica, has seen its market value drop by almost a fifth in the last two years.
CHINA BUILD-UP
China's military build-up, illustrated by the maiden flight of its J-20 stealth fighter a year ago, is fueling arms sales across Asia for fighter jets.
China has denied its acquisition of stealth should be viewed as a threat. Across the region, however, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia are among those seeking to expand their capabilities.
China's expansion may be the reason India is now considering another purchase of over 80 jets in a move that could benefit the F-35, said U.S.-based defense analyst Loren Thompson.
"They'll have to buy something else because a Rafale will not be able to cope with Chinese fighters 20 years from now."
Lockheed's F-35 fighter is aggressively bidding for additional overseas sales to offset slower production at home. It hopes to finalize a 19-jet deal with Israel soon, and to secure an agreement with Singapore for the stealthy F-35.
Mindful of India's long procurement process and its decision to cancel past orders for air tankers and helicopters, French officials have taken pains to say the Rafale deal is not final.
But with the Rafale facing a production halt in 2021 without exports, India's decision has galvanized the world's third largest arms exporter and raised its profile in other campaigns.
France's La Tribune newspaper reported on Friday that the United Arab Emirates had revived an on-off deal to buy 60 Rafales.
Dassault was expected to seal the $10 billion deal last year but faced a rare public rebuke from Abu Dhabi for making "unworkable" proposals, throwing a lifeline to Eurofighter and Boeing, both of whom have been talking to the UAE military.
Gulf tensions are running high due to international concerns about Iran's nuclear activities. Those concerns helped spur along a massive sale of Boeing F-15s to Saudi Arabia at the end of 2011, as well as a big missile defense sale to UAE.
Now, the region may hold the key for India's losing bidders.
"The India deal is a major win for France, and a major loss for the UK. This leaves Oman and UAE as the largest potential markets for the Eurofighter, both of which are significantly smaller than India and less certain to move forward," said Endre Lunde, a consultant at Aerospace & Defence Consulting.
BAE Systems is expected to supply Oman with 12 Typhoons. Defence sources say it is in preliminary talks to sell a further 48 to Saudi Arabia. BAE and Eurofighter declined comment.
Abu Dhabi's decision alone has hefty commercial stakes.
French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet has suggested the UAE's decision could create a domino effect of sales in Qatar and Kuwait, both of which are eager to renew aerial firepower.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/03/arms-fighters-idUSL2E8D37X620120203
Indian Military Goes French
The Indian Air Force has opted for Dassault's Rafale fighter jet to fulfill its multi-billion dollar contract. It's a major blow to the Eurofighter.
It's taken nearly a decade to get there, but India this week confirmed that it has selected the Dassault Rafale to fulfill its medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) requirement. For the beaten finalist, the Eurofighter Typhoon, co-built by Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K., second is as good as nowhere (although until contracts are formally signed, Eurofighter's cause isn't entirely lost).
India will now acquire 126 Dassault aircraft, though a fleet of around 190 Indian Air Force (IAF) Rafales could eventually be assembled. The ultimate value of the deal could be two to three times higher than the initial $10 billion to $11 billion outlay once 30 to 40 years of through-life support, and extra planes, are factored in.
The face-off between the French Rafale and the part-British Typhoon has been an intriguing subplot to the wider saga of European disharmony, with relations between Paris and London becoming increasingly acrimonious against the backdrop of Europe's economic malaise.
Both governments badly needed the Indian fighter deal as a rare piece of economic good news, especially with defense sector jobs already being shed and others still vulnerable. India's decision will give Paris something to trumpet, while severely stinging the British and its Eurofighter partner nations.
The stakes for the companies concerned – Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium, a partnership of BAE Systems (U.K.), EADS (Germany and Spain) and Alenia Aeronautica (Italy) – could hardly have been higher. Momentum is critical for these big defense programs, and both aircraft looked in danger of losing theirs, not just in India but in other markets besides. The Rafale is chasing orders in Brazil, Kuwait and the U.A.E; but the plane's prospects in all three markets appeared to worsen in 2011, and an Indian rebuttal would have only deterred those potential buyers from placing their faith in the French jet. Indeed, it was looking like the Rafale might fail to secure any exports at all, calling into question the standalone future of the French defense aerospace sector. But now, Dassault has scooped the biggest contract of all.
For Eurofighter, the prospects had been looking somewhat brighter. Following export orders from Austria and Saudi Arabia, the Typhoon is also in the running in Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates. But the aircraft has now suffered two serious knock-backs within the space of as many months. In December, Japan rejected the Typhoon in favor of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. But nobody seriously expected the European company to win the Japanese contest – which is why the loss in India, where Eurofighter had been tipped by many analysts as the favorite, will be so much more demoralizing.
As for the Indian Air Force (IAF), it can now look forward to adding a highly capable aircraft to its ranks. Some critics of the whole MMRCA process have complained that by the time the winning plane enters Indian service (from 2016 onwards) it will already be outdated, with stealthy Chinese, Russian and U.S. jets all coming online by then. But that's a short-sighted argument. When the IAF inducts the Rafale, it will be the best aircraft at its disposal; it will also be a match for anything its two main strategic rivals, China and Pakistan, are able to field at that time, and therefore an effective deterrent (the likelihood of China's experimental J-20 stealth fighter being an in-service production aircraft by then seems low, while the jury is still out on whether Russia's T-50/PAK-FA will offer true stealth capability). Crucially, the Rafale offering brings with it the level of technology transfer that India's defense industry so badly needs.
The IAF's history with French aircraft no doubt worked in the Rafale's favor. The service already flies the Mirage – an aircraft IAF officers are known to like – and decided in July to go ahead with a major $2.4bn upgrade program for its Mirage fleet. Some analysts speculated that the Mirage upgrade deal might have been a consolation prize for the French ahead of failure in the MMRCA deal, but that turned out not to be so.
The IAF can now also devote more energy to the evaluation of three other programs that are also critical to its future capability: the developmental F-35; the Russian T-50/PAK-FA project, in which India is already a junior partner; and the indigenous medium combat aircraft (MCA) program, which remains on the drawing board (designs, due by the end of 2011, have yet to materialize). While the procurement of one, two or perhaps even all three of these aircraft will have a great bearing on the IAF's long-term future, today's announcement marks an important milestone in Indian defense. It is also a new lease on life for the Dassault Rafale, and a hammer blow for Eurofighter.
http://the-diplomat.com/2012/02/05/indian-military-goes-french/
5 Feb, 2012, 12.58AM IST, Bennett Voyles,
9 factors that may have helped Dassault sell its Rafale fighter this week
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/9-factors-that-may-have-helped-dassault-sell-its-rafale-fighter-this-week/articleshow/11758620.cms?curpg=1
De Italianen tonen een nieuwe ambitie, blijkbaar staan ze open voor een samenwerking met Turkije om de gewenste Turkse 5e generatie kist mede te ontwikkelen en zelfs de eerste te bouwen.
Zou maar zo een slimme zet kunnen worden van de Italianen gezien het (ogenschijnlijke) gebrek aan ambitie (geld) van de drie Europese producenten.
"Italien möchte ersten türkischen Kampfjet bauen"
http://www.deutsch-tuerkische-nachrichten.de/2012/02/378290/italien-moechte-ersten-tuerkischen-kampfjet-bauen/
BAE Systems set to work with French on Mantis droneBy Tom Mcghie
Last updated at 1:08 PM on 5th February 2012
Britain and France are expected to sign a deal to develop a high-tech unmanned aircraft based on the topsecret Mantis project developed by BAE Systems in Lancashire.
The plane, capable of striking from high altitudes after travelling huge distances, will be designed by BAE and Dassault Aviation.
The French company's Rafale fighter was recently chosen by New Delhi ahead of the Typhoon made by BAE Systems and Cassidian in a contract worth $10billion (£6.3billion) to supply 126 jets for the Indian air force.
The long-awaited £1billion Mantis deal is seen as being highly significant.Not only will it be the first fruits of the Franco-British Treaty on Defence Co-operation signed early last year, it also virtually confirms that manned fighter aircraft such as the Typhoon will be superseded within a few decades.
The Coalition and the Ministry of Defence now believe that unmanned fighter and bomber aircraft are the way ahead.
Stefan Zoller, chief executive of Europe's biggest defence company Cassidian - the new name for the EADS military business - said last week: 'Unmanned aerial vehicles are the future of military aviation. What is going to follow the Eurofighter? It will definitely be unmanned aerial systems and they are already being introduced today. Everyone within the industry is preparing for these new systems.'
Zoller said Cassidian had invested nearly £500million in unmanned aviation projects.
He admitted that in future only co-operation among European countries and some advanced former Third World countries such as India could raise the huge investments that are necessary.
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2096750/BAE-Systems-set-work-French-Mantis-drone.html#ixzz1lW3HWgBN
Why India chose Rafale
K.P. NAYAR
Washington, Feb. 5: When Pratibha Patil travelled to Europe last October, she and others in her entourage had a pleasant surprise in the sky. At one point along the air space that the President's flight was using, half a squadron of Eurofighters appeared on both sides of her Air India plane.
In the graceful style of these sleek war machines, they escorted the presidential aircraft to its safe landing at Patil's next destination. Even so, those manning the Eurofighters could not resist showing off.
When the Eurofighters displayed the prowess of this advanced new-generation, multi-role combat aircraft to the President, members of Parliament and senior officials accompanying her, New Delhi's quest for 126 planes of its kind could not have been far from the minds of their pilots.
The competition for the biggest military aviation deal in history, which began 11 years ago when the defence ministry initiated its "request for information" or RFI, had just entered its final and decisive phase.
But the impromptu decision to send the Eurofighters across European skies to impress the President was typical of what cost some rivals of Dassault Aviation — last week's winners — the lucrative Indian Air Force contract.
It was somewhat reminiscent of Henry Kissinger's disastrous invitation to defence minister Jagjivan Ram to visit Washington in 1971 as the sub-continent was heading into war, as recounted by Rukmini Menon, who was then joint secretary for the US in South Block.
"Why should I visit Washington?" Ram asked a non-plussed Kissinger and proceeded to tell him how American arms supplies had emboldened Pakistan to ruthlessly suppress East Pakistanis.
Partly, it was a similar approach that resulted in Boeing's F-18E and Lockheed Martin's F-16E being turfed out of the competition for the IAF deal earlier in the race. Not solely with the multi-role combat aircraft deal in mind, the Obama administration had made too much noise bereft of substance about the first state visit of his administration and Barack Obama's first state dinner in honour of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
There was a time when India's rulers could solely be influenced by gimmicks. But theatrics and atmospherics can no longer substitute hard policy options. This is one lesson New Delhi has hopefully absorbed firsthand from intense, albeit under the radar interaction with Israelis — especially in defence matters — in the last 20 years.
Then there was A.K. Antony, whom the losers in the bid for the IAF deal had not reckoned with. Antony, by nature, is averse to being the public face of decision-making. This has been the case throughout his tenure as defence minister, especially during scandals such as the Adarsh housing scam that rocked the army. Each time it was clear that the defence minister had made up his mind, but the decisions were put out as if they were taken elsewhere, along the proper channel.
Such an approach came through clearly in his most detailed statement on January 31 on the controversy about the army chief's age. Ending months of virtual silence in the matter, Antony blamed the army for sitting on the problem for 36 years and then dealing with it in its own wisdom. So much so the army chief Gen. V.K. Singh had to agree with the minister.
Antony has maintained in public throughout that the multi-role combat aircraft acquisition process is a technical matter that would be decided by professionals in uniform. But such a public position overlooks the reality that Antony's core support team in his ministry is much more ideological than in any other wing of the present government. Like civil servants, men in uniform are not immune from ministerial winds blowing in a particular direction.
Ideological considerations have prevented Antony from visiting Israel and from signing at least three defence agreements with the Americans which his core team views as compromising India's strategic autonomy.
If the Russian plane on offer, MiG-35, had not clearly failed the tests, it was conceivable that it would very much have been in the reckoning. With the Russians out of the way, it did weigh with the political leadership in the defence ministry that France favours a multi-polar world and that India is a beneficiary of such an approach.
France won the bid for the entire order because it supplemented the requirements of the global tender with sweeteners that in the real world of strategic engagement, only three countries can offer India: Russia and Israel, in addition to France itself.
The collaborations that France has offered India in recent years in the field of intelligence sharing and upgrade are without parallel. Naturally, this is an area where co-operation cannot be publicised by the very nature of such engagement.
India and France face somewhat similar threats of domestic terrorism, vastly different from the threats faced by the US, Russia or even Israel. The assistance that Paris has offered New Delhi in preparing the country against such threats and the constant upgrading of their assistance went a long way towards creating an environment that favoured the French on the aircraft deal.
It was in direct contrast to Washington's approach: the bulk of India's intelligence community and key bureaucrats at decision-making levels believe that the Americans two-timed New Delhi on David Coleman Headley, their double agent in Chicago who played a major role in the Pakistan-supported terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008.
In addition, spread across India's entire political spectrum that includes much of the Opposition, is a firm conviction that India would not have come out unscathed from the decision to conduct the 1998 nuclear tests if it were not for the steadfast backing that President Jacques Chirac — and Nicolas Sarkozy after him — offered India in an hour of great need.
It is not widely known that during the Kargil war in 1999, the French approved with lightning speed the adaptation of Indian Air Force Mirages in tandem with equally speedy Israeli supplies of laser-guided bombs which they delivered in Srinagar: without such French and Israeli support, India could have lost Kargil to Pervez Musharraf's perfidy.
No honourable Indian in uniform can forget that in such a situation, the US or Britain would have probably suspended all military supplies to the combatants to prove their bona fides as honest brokers for peace.
Policies may be the result of collective decision-making in governments, but within that framework, individuals do matter. One such individual who has left a mark on Franco-Indian relations is Jean-David Levitte, whose critical role in securing the Rafale deal for his country will never become a matter of public record because of the nature of his job.
Levitte is diplomatic adviser and "Sherpa" to Sarkozy, who made amends for the temperamental mistakes during his President's first visit to India as chief guest during Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi and organised a second trip that turned out to be one of most productive and substantive visits by any head of state to India.
Levitte was senior diplomatic adviser to Chirac too when Brajesh Mishra, the then principal secretary to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, flew to Paris as his first stop abroad seeking diplomatic support after the Pokhran II nuclear tests. Mishra found such support in Paris before he extracted reluctant support from Moscow.
Soon afterwards, Levitte became French permanent representative to the UN in New York where he led, along with Russia, a split among the five permanent members of the Security Council on the issue of punishing India through sanctions on the nuclear issue. Later he was ambassador in Washington.
Two of the countries which have been after the multi-role combat aircraft deal, the US and Britain, were at that time in the forefront of efforts in the Security Council to choke India into submission and roll back its nuclear programme.
Within the political and civilian leadership of India's defence establishment, there has been no doubt that other things being equal, India should reward a friend in need, in this case, France.
http://telegraphindia.com/1120206/jsp/frontpage/story_15098135.jsp
BAE may consider cut to Typhoon price - report
Defence company BAE Systems is looking at all options to win back a US$20 billion tender with the Indian air force, the company's chief executive told the Financial Times.
"I will be discussing with our partners what we do next. In my view, all options are on the table," BAE Chief Executive Ian King was quoted by the FT as saying.
India preferred a bid from France's Dassault aviation last month, after competing with BAE to secure a 126 aircraft contract, Reuters reports.
Dassault's Rafale fighter jet undercut BAE's Eurofighter Typhoon, an Indian government source told Reuters when the contract was agreed.
The FT cited King as saying BAE was considering reducing the price of the Typhoon, but needed to consult with its partners in Germany, Italy and Spain on the best options open.
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23247:bae-may-consider-cut-to-typhoon-price-report&catid=7:Industry&Itemid=116
Citaat van: dudge op 07/02/2012 | 09:10 uur
Altijd handig om te doen. Maar dit hadden ze dan beter eerder kunnen bedenken/doen.
De kans dat ze het contract nu nog voor de Rafale kunnen weggrijpen, is m.i. behoorlijk klein. Enige kans is dat de contract onderhandelingen met de Fransen mislukken, waardoor de Typhoon weer in beeld zou komen, maar ik vermoed dat ze er wel uitkomen.
Ben ik met je eens.
Daarnaast is het probeersel redelijk schofferend voor de Indiërs want in feiten zeggen de boys van EADS: we kunnen goedkoper maar erger nog: jullie hebben een totaal verkeerde keuze gemaakt.
Wees een vent en neem je verlies en ga op naar de volgende.
Overigens: het concept van eenmarine variant van de EF kan nu definitief de prullenbak in.
NGC Participating in Bold Alligator Maritime Exercise With F-35 Sensors
Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) is participating in U.S. Fleet Forces Command's Joint/Coalition Amphibious Exercise Bold Alligator 2012, employing the company's BAC1-11 test aircraft to provide F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) sensor capabilities.
During Bold Alligator 2012, the BAC1-11 is being configured with the F-35's AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and the AN/AAQ-37 infrared distributed aperture system (DAS). Systems will operate with future software blocks undergoing test as well as those delivered in current F-35 jets.
Bold Alligator is a large-scale, multinational Navy-Marine Corps amphibious exercise conducted by U.S. Fleet Forces and Marine Forces Command. It will be the Atlantic Fleet's largest amphibious exercise in 10 years. The 2012 exercise is centralizing planning and execution of a brigade-sized amphibious assault from a seabase in a medium threat environment. Following a decade of ground war, this event is intended to revitalize, refine and strengthen core amphibious competencies of the Navy and Marine Corps.
"With JSF being delivered to training commands in 2012, the Navy-Marine Corps team is poised to start using our radar and DAS in an operational context, much like U.S. Pacific Command did during Northern Edge 2011. Northrop Grumman's commitment to deliver new capabilities to the war fighter remains a priority. This exercise is another opportunity to demonstrate operational utility to the fleet," said Jeff Leavitt, Northrop Grumman's vice president of Combat Avionics Systems. "F-35 sensor capabilities are unprecedented. Their performance continues to meet or exceed expectations."
Building upon successful F-35 sensor deployments during Exercise Northern Edge in 2009 and 2011 in Alaska, Northrop Grumman's BAC1-11 test aircraft is flying air-to-air and air-to-ground reconnaissance missions during Bold Alligator's large naval and ground force maneuvers on the Atlantic coast. Participating naval forces include an aircraft carrier strike group, amphibious ready group, NATO alliance ships from eight partner nations, and Marine landing forces.
The F-35 AN/APG-81 AESA radar and AN/AAQ-37 DAS have demonstrated exceptional maturity well in advance of formal operational testing timelines. Participation in Bold Alligator is integrating these advanced capabilities in the maritime domain.
The AN/APG-81 AESA radar is a multifunction aperture capable of the full range of air-to-air and air-to-surface functions complemented by significant electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. The AN/AAQ-37 DAS provides passive spherical awareness for the F-35, simultaneously detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction, and providing visual imagery for day/night navigation and targeting purposes. The F-35 JSF's role as an invaluable future component of the Navy, Marine Corps and international defense team is being demonstrated in all phases of amphibious operations as exercised in Bold Alligator
Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news-40836/NGC_Participating_in_Bold_Alligator_Maritime_Exercise_With_F-35_Sensors.htm#ixzz1lhJl6lqZ
F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS)
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/
Exclusive: F-35 May Fail to Meet Key Requirements
The United States Air Force (USAF) variant of Lockheed Martin's F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force's key requirements — the ability to carry weapons externally and fly at Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour) or faster, an industry insider said Tuesday.
He pointed out that the Korean military has clearly outlined the two key features as compulsory requirements in its request for proposal (RFP) released Jan. 30.
"The maximum speed of the F-35 Lightning II, which is still under development, is Mach 1.6, the bare minimum the Air Force has stated as a mandatory requirement," the insider familiar with the RFP said.
"The question is whether Lockheed Martin's F-35 can prove itself to fly at such an ideal speed as advertised when a team of Air Force pilots test fly the aircraft later this year."
The Air Force is scheduled to carry out testing and evaluations on the F-35 and its two rivals, Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle and EADS's Typhoon, from June through September before announcing its selection in October.
The winner of the FX-III project, the third and final phase of Korea's advanced fighter jet procurement project, will deliver 60 high-end aircraft from 2016 for around 8.29 trillion won ($7.26 billion).
The industry source said the F-35, the only fifth generation stealth aircraft offered on the market, will most likely perform worse than Lockheed Martin has assured when the Air Force checks the U.S. defense giant's latest multirole, single-engine aircraft.
"What is certain to happen is that the U.S. government will provide assurances to the Air Force that the F-35 will be able to fly at Mach 1.6 by overcoming all of the technical glitches and development problems by the time it is delivered to Korea," the source said.
"Eventually, this will pave the way for Lockheed Martin, the favorite choice for the U.S. government, to get away with the compulsory requirement and win the FX-III bid. All the broken promises will only cost millions of dollars in penalties."
Another industry insider pointed out that Lockheed Martin will be unlikely to complete its envisioned development of external pods and pylons for its latest stealth aircraft in time.
"Lockheed Martin has boasted that its aircraft is capable of carrying weapons not only internally, but also externally on its six external missile pylons," he said. "But it will be physically impossible to complete the development of the external pylons by the time the F-35 is delivered to Korea."
Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin's director of the Korea F-35 Campaign, also acknowledged that the external carriage may come as an option for Korea.
"Lockheed Martin did not cancel it, the U.S. government prioritized it," Howard said, explaining why doubts have been raised over the development of the F-35's external hard points.
"The F-35 is designed to carry weapons internally. That's what it does, and that's why it is stealthy."
He argued that the F-35's primary attribute, the ability to penetrate into the enemy's territory without being detected, will be significantly compromised if Korea chooses to mount weapons externally.
"If you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy. That's not normally how you are going to operate F-35s," he said.
He did note that if Korea insists on the F-35 to have an external carriage, his company is willing to customize it.
"It is only a question of prioritization of weapon certification," he argued.
"If there are requirements for the external carriage of different weapons, it is not a hard thing because all of the capabilities are there."
Other industry officials, however, refuted Howard's claim, saying the development of external pylons not only reduces the aircraft stealth capabilities, but also requires a fundamental change in the aircraft design, which the USAF is not willing to pay for.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132510/f_35-seen-failing-key-korean-requirements.html
WAT KRIJGEN WE NOU ?
Standaard F-35 zonder externe ophangpunten !!
Ze kunnen dit wel als optie aangebieden, maar dit geeft wel een meerprijs voor de klant die dit wil in verband met dat er veranderingen aan het ontwerp van de F-35 gedaan moeten worden.
Lees het stuk hieronder, posting van 4:55 uur, maar eens door.
Als dit echt waar is, dan kan de F-35 officieel alleen intern wapens meenemen.
Citaat van: Harald op 07/02/2012 | 17:29 uur
WAT KRIJGEN WE NOU ?
Standaard F-35 zonder externe ophangpunten !!
Ze kunnen dit wel als optie aangebieden, maar dit geeft wel een meerprijs voor de klant die dit wil in verband met dat er veranderingen aan het ontwerp van de F-35 gedaan moeten worden.
Lees het stuk hieronder, posting van 4:55 uur, maar eens door.
Als dit echt waar is, dan kan de F-35 officieel alleen intern wapens meenemen.
Zoals al zo vaak beschreven, leve een nieuwe objectieve competitie.
Voor de gewenste stealth capaciteiten nemen we dan wel een stealth UCAV.
Citaat van: Harald op 07/02/2012 | 17:29 uur
Ze kunnen dit wel als optie aangebieden, maar dit geeft wel een meerprijs voor de klant die dit wil in verband met dat er veranderingen aan het ontwerp van de F-35 gedaan moeten worden.
IK lees hier juist dat er een nog een flinke ontwerpfout is.
Citaat van: Harald op 07/02/2012 | 17:29 uur
WAT KRIJGEN WE NOU ? Standaard F-35 zonder externe ophangpunten !!
Ze kunnen dit wel als optie aangebieden, maar dit geeft wel een meerprijs voor de klant die dit wil in verband met dat er veranderingen aan het ontwerp van de F-35 gedaan moeten worden.
Als dit echt waar is, dan kan de F-35 officieel alleen intern wapens meenemen.
Volgens de oorspronkelijke planning zou de F-35A 2 externe peut tanks mee kunnen voeren in de Block 3 variant en hoger.
Deze tanks verhogen de totale peut voorraad met 30%. Da's mooi, echter het bereik nam slechts toe met 8%.
Dus is de certificering uitgesteld, totdat klanten deze optie op hun kist willen hebben. De kleine toename in bereik toont echter aan, dat het F-35A ontwerp is geoptimaliseerd voor een schone configuratie, of te wel geen externe lasten aan deze kist.
Welke een flinke beperking vormt voor de hoeveelheid en assortiment aan mee te voeren wapens, tanks en pods (gondels met bijv. stoorzenders).
Eigenlijk is die F35 toch een Kamikaze vliegtuig?! Je vliegt met een beetje mazzal ongehinderd het luchtruim in met een zeer beperkt aantal wapens in de weapons bay. Vanaf het moment dat je de klep open gaat om af te vuren ben je gezien. Dat wordt het een eitje om die trage, relatief slecht wendbare kist neer te halen. Sayonara!
JSF 'no match' for latest Russian fighters or Chinese radar
by: Mark Dodd
From:The Australian
February 08, 201212:00AM
THE stealth qualities of the futuristic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on order for the Royal Australian Air Force are overrated and the plane's combat performance greatly exaggerated, a defence lobby group has claimed.
The complaints by Air Power Australia, longtime critics of the $16 billion JSF acquisition, were made last night before a public hearing of parliament's defence sub-committee.
Latest-generation Russian fighters such as the Sukhoi T-50 would easily defeat the F-35 in air-to-air combat, Air Power's Peter Goon said, referring to recent modelling tests by his organisation.
"The aircraft we are planning to buy is carrying over 2000 pounds (900kg) of dead weight," Mr Goon said, referring to the JSF's big jet engines.
New Russian and Chinese air defence radars would also have little trouble detecting the JSF, a craft touted for its stealth qualities, he added.
The RAAF says it wants 100 US-designed JSFs to replace the decommisioned F-111 strike aircraft, with the first squadron supposed to be operating by 2018.
But the program has been mired in cost overruns and delays.
Last month US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the purchase of US JSFs to be delayed to allow Lockheed-Martin time to resolve production and technical shortcomings.
The company is contracted to deliver the first two training aircraft in 2014 with another 12 scheduled for 2015-17.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has said he is now considering an option to order additional F/A-18F Super Hornets to fill any capability gap created by further JSF production delays.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/jsf-no-match-for-latest-russian-fighters-or-chinese-radar/story-e6frg8yo-1226265180090
LM F-35 aircraft future in Italy is going to be discussed today at Chamber of Deputies
Rome, Italy - Live broadcasting at 2:00pm, where Gen. Debertolis will show the purchase proposal that enraged press last days
(WAPA) - It's going to be today at 2:00pm the discussion above JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) program that provides the purchase of new aircraft fighters Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which includes a $15 billion dept Italy should pay in 15 years.
The project, instead of hard critics from public opinion about the enormous expenditure the Country is going to front in this crisis period, started about a decade ago with Italian participation in actively re-founding of the program.
So, the hypothesis of an Italian back-turn on the argument seems far, a declared recently by Defence minister Di Paola in a public "Rai" television interview. "Is F-35 system something useful for our Country?" had been demanded to Di Paola, who answered "Yes, of course. The program represents a great industrial resource for the Country and it will start new job opportunities in Italy", adding then F-35 is necessary "For a military power as Italy is, to which could be asked an intervention in complicated scenery".
Some rumors report news about a possible project reduction, and the number of aircraft licenses which are going to be bought is not clear at now.
From some international press declaration we also notice that F-35 project is really too much expensive for many of the partner-Countries which are trying to get away from it.
The speech of General Claudio Debortolis today will surely put clearness on it, giving press concrete traces for an information based on facts and not just from voices.
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1137507&pagina_chiamante=index.php
UK won't decide on F-35 fighter numbers till 2015
The UK has deferred to 2015 a firm commitment on how many Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets it will buy, adding to uncertainties over the multinational programme which has recently been questioned in the US Congress.
"We will not make final decisions on the overall number of aircraft we will order before the next planned Strategic Defence Review (in 2015)," a UK's Ministry of Defence MoD spokeswoman told reporters, adding an initial order would be placed next year.
The F-35 project ranks as the most expensive US arms programme but has been criticised for cost overruns at a time when next week's U.S. fiscal 2013 budget plan is expected to postpone funding for 179 warplanes until after 2017 - a move that has prompted international partners to question their own procurement plans.
Britain in 2001 committed to buy 138 of the multirole stealth aircraft, but the current coalition government in its 2010 defence review said it would cut the number of F-35s it had on order without saying by how many.
Britain has so far placed a firm order with Lockheed for three F-35 test and evaluation aircraft costing US$632 million.
A spokesman for Lockheed, the top US defence contractor, said Britain's total order had not been revised down and remained at 138. Britain was due to receive its first F-35 in June.
While there have been reports Britain will cut its order to 50 F-35s, the MoD said it did not recognise that figure.
Expectations for the number of F-35s Britain will eventually order have been curtailed since the MoD's decision to use only one aircraft carrier, which will routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations, while retaining a capacity to deploy up to 36.
In the United States, cuts to the F-35 program are part of the Pentagon's plan to start implementing US$487 billion in defence spending reductions over the next decade.
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/92121/uk-wont-decide-on-f35-fighter-numbers-till-2015
One Reason Why India May Not Have Picked F-35 as its Next Fighter
An F-35B prepares to vertically land for the first time at sea on the flight deck of USS Wasp.
15:52 GMT, February 7, 2012 International observers are somewhat mystified as to why India's air force selected the Dassault Rafale as its next fighter, committing billions of dollars to the purchase of 126 combat aircraft. The plane hasn't developed much of a market outside France, and India had other options including the far more survivable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter being developed for three U.S. military services and a dozen allies. At the rate China is fielding new military equipment, the Indians may be at a decided operational disadvantage even before the Rafale is fully fielded.
New Delhi is a complicated place, and there were probably multiple reasons for the decision. But here's one factor that hasn't been reported. India made three different requests for information to the U.S. government over the last several years about sea-based versions of the F-35, and somehow nobody in Washington ever managed to answer any of them. Not surprisingly, the Indians eventually went away, but the lack of a U.S. response can't have made a good impression.
This situation is reminiscent of the way Japan, another first-tier Asian power, was treated when it made repeated inquiries concerning possible purchase of the twin-engine F-22 fighter. Military planners in Tokyo felt the F-22 was uniquely suited to Japan's geostrategic circumstances, and therefore were seriously contemplating its purchase. Their inquiries weren't just ignored in Washington, but bluntly rebuffed. Tokyo eventually decided to buy the single-engine F-35 instead, which is just as stealthy but not as agile in the most demanding engagements (it's still far superior to any foreign fighter).
Tokyo undoubtedly made the right choice among the options it had, and South Korea will probably soon follow suit. India is another matter, though, because the Obama Administration's oft-stated desire to form a strategic alliance with New Delhi sometimes doesn't seem to translate into appropriate respect for India's needs or aspirations. If Washington wants to get along with India's government, it should begin by answering the phone when New Dehli calls. The Indian navy may still be interested in the jumpjet version of F-35, and the air force could give the conventional takeoff version a second look as China's military capabilities grow, but first someone in Washington needs to act like they care.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/32123/?SID=3348ba2320c5851225dc82fdec6c1981
Joint strike fighter program a 'failure': think tank
DAVID ELLERY
08 Feb, 2012 11:40 AM
Some of the most vehement critics of Australia's involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee.
Representatives of anti-JSF think tank Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd were given an hour to make their case before the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
By the time the group was 30 minutes into its presentation at least five of the committee members had left the room.
Remaining committee members, including Opposition defence spokesman Senator David Johnston, were told the JSF program was a failure, the planes only had limited stealth capability and that they were compromised by the use of a core design to produce three different variants; a conventional land based plane, a short take off and landing variant that will replace the US Marine Corps' Harrier jets and a carrier version.
Air Power Australia wants the Australian Government to abandon the JSF and, instead, exert pressure on the US Government to scrap the program in favour of having Lockheed Martin re-open its F-22 Raptor production line and make that plane, arguably the world's best air superiority fighter, available to the international partners.
``We're building the wrong aircraft,'' spokesman Peter Goon said.
Independent analysts say this is unlikely to ever happen – and that the F-22 was never released for foreign sales in any case.
Senior Defence officials, who have been aware of the Air Power Australia claims for some time and give them little credence, are not expected to take Tuesday's presentation lying down. It is understood a formal response could be made to the committee around the middle of next month.
Mr Goon said the STOVL F-35B variant imposed weight and performance limits on the other two aircraft. ``It is the aerial equivalent of Herpes; it just keeps on giving.''
He was equally disparaging about the Boeing Super Hornet, the plane favoured by Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, to stand in for the JSF if there are further delays in the stealth fighter program. ``It is a technological lemon''.
Judging from the number of questions, the remaining committee members found the segment of the presentation detailing computer simulations of a hypothetical 2018 air battle between either 240 F-35s, 240 F-22 Raptors or 240 Super Hornets and an equivalent number of Sukhoi SU35s off the coast of Taiwan the most interesting.
It was claimed only 30 F-35s would survive as against no survivors for the Super Hornet force and 139 survivors for the F-22 force.
Senator Johnston said the claims were interesting but stressed it was important the committee be provided with the assumptions on which the simulation was based so it could be assessed with some degree of accuracy.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/joint-strike-fighter-program-a-failure-think-tank/2448416.aspx?storypage=0
India to share its $10 bn fighter selection experience with Brazil
Josy Joseph, TNN | Feb 8, 2012, 05.45AM IST
NEW DELHI: In an unusual bilateral tie-up, India has agreed to share with Brazil some of its experiences of carrying out an open tender evaluation to select a fighter for the over $10 billion MMRCA (Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) contract. Brazil is presently in the process of selecting a fighter for its air force.
India conveyed its willingness to share some of its documentation on the MMRCA contract during a meeting between defence minister AK Antony and his Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim.
"Brazil is in the process of buying a fighter jet. You have already reached the final stages of the fighter selection for the air force. They have promised to give us some documents on the selection process, such as basic rules on the tender process that we could compare to ours," Amorim told TOI.
Amorim met Antony and national security advisor Shiv Shankar Menon on Monday in New Delhi, and the two sides held bilateral defence consultations at various levels.
Amorim said Brazil was eager to learn from India's process of finalizing Rafale, the French fighter, for the over $10 billion MMRCA contract. It is one of the world's biggest defence tenders right now.
Brazil is looking to buy 36 new fighters for its air force. The tender had left it open to the possibility of the number of fighters going up to 120. The tender could run into several billion dollars, though the initial estimate was just $2.2 billion. Brazil has already made a pre-selection of three fighters - Rafale, F-18 and Gripen-NG and one will finally be selected.
"Wherever there is a possibility we should always look for sharing of experience, of course while respecting confidentiality," Amorim said. "Sharing of experience doesn't mean we follow your decision," he added. The minister also said they would be looking at discussing Indian experience of building a fifth generation fighter with Russia.
Brazil is also providing India an exclusively developed catalogue of NATO military equipment, in which India was interested, he said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-to-share-its-10-bn-fighter-selection-experience-with-Brazil/articleshow/11801915.cms
[Exclusive] F-35 may fail to meet key requirements
By Lee Tae-hoon
The United States Air Force (USAF) variant of Lockheed Martin's F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force's key requirements — the ability to carry weapons externally and fly at Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour) or faster, an industry insider said Tuesday.
He pointed out that the Korean military has clearly outlined the two key features as compulsory requirements in its request for proposal (RFP) released Jan. 30.
"The maximum speed of the F-35 Lightning II, which is still under development, is Mach 1.6, the bare minimum the Air Force has stated as a mandatory requirement," the insider familiar with the RFP said.
"The question is whether Lockheed Martin's F-35 can prove itself to fly at such an ideal speed as advertised when a team of Air Force pilots test fly the aircraft later this year."
The Air Force is scheduled to carry out testing and evaluations on the F-35 and its two rivals, Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle and EADS's Typhoon, from June through September before announcing its selection in October.
The winner of the FX-III project, the third and final phase of Korea's advanced fighter jet procurement project, will deliver 60 high-end aircraft from 2016 for around 8.29 trillion won ($7.26 billion).
The industry source said the F-35, the only fifth generation stealth aircraft offered on the market, will most likely perform worse than Lockheed Martin has assured when the Air Force checks the U.S. defense giant's latest multirole, single-engine aircraft.
"What is certain to happen is that the U.S. government will provide assurances to the Air Force that the F-35 will be able to fly at Mach 1.6 by overcoming all of the technical glitches and development problems by the time it is delivered to Korea," the source said.
"Eventually, this will pave the way for Lockheed Martin, the favorite choice for the U.S. government, to get away with the compulsory requirement and win the FX-III bid. All the broken promises will only cost millions of dollars in penalties."
Another industry insider pointed out that Lockheed Martin will be unlikely to complete its envisioned development of external pods and pylons for its latest stealth aircraft in time.
"Lockheed Martin has boasted that its aircraft is capable of carrying weapons not only internally, but also externally on its six external missile pylons," he said. "But it will be physically impossible to complete the development of the external pylons by the time the F-35 is delivered to Korea."
Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin's director of the Korea F-35 Campaign, also acknowledged that the external carriage may come as an option for Korea.
"Lockheed Martin did not cancel it, the U.S. government prioritized it," Howard said, explaining why doubts have been raised over the development of the F-35's external hard points.
"The F-35 is designed to carry weapons internally. That's what it does, and that's why it is stealthy."
He argued that the F-35's primary attribute, the ability to penetrate into the enemy's territory without being detected, will be significantly compromised if Korea chooses to mount weapons externally.
"If you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy. That's not normally how you are going to operate F-35s," he said.
He did note that if Korea insists on the F-35 to have an external carriage, his company is willing to customize it.
"It is only a question of prioritization of weapon certification," he argued.
"If there are requirements for the external carriage of different weapons, it is not a hard thing because all of the capabilities are there."
Other industry officials, however, refuted Howard's claim, saying the development of external pylons not only reduces the aircraft stealth capabilities, but also requires a fundamental change in the aircraft design, which the USAF is not willing to pay for.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/116_104306.html (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/116_104306.html)
MMRCA, Rafale International official Web Site
Rafale International has released its official Web Site for the Indian contest.
http://www.rafale.co.in/index.php?lang=en
Nog eens even zitten googlen naar F-15SE en Evaluatie in Korea.
F-35 voldoet waarschijnlijk niet aan de eisen, dus deze is "OUT"
Mijns inziens heeft de F-15SE de beste papieren, mede doordat Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd. (KAI) de Conformal Weapons Bay (CWB) gaat maken voor Boeing.
Voor de F-15K's maakt KAI al de vleugels en het voorste deel van de romp.
Boeing, KAI Sign Agreement for Production of F-15 Silent Eagle Conformal Weapons Bay
http://air-attack.com/news/article/4257/11-04-2010-Boeing-KAI-Sign-Agreement-for-Production-of-F-15-Silent-Eagle-Conformal-Weapons-Bay.html
Maar er zijn ook donkere wolken voor Boeing voor het offereren van de F-15SE aan Korea, misschien moest ze wel een F-15K+ aanbieden
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2837521/posts
Citaat van: Harald op 08/02/2012 | 13:45 uur
Nog eens even zitten googlen naar F-15SE en Evaluatie in Korea.
F-35 voldoet waarschijnlijk niet aan de eisen, dus deze is "OUT"
Mijns inziens heeft de F-15SE de beste papieren, mede doordat Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd. (KAI) de Conformal Weapons Bay (CWB) gaat maken voor Boeing.
Voor de F-15K's maakt KAI al de vleugels en het voorste deel van de romp.
Boeing, KAI Sign Agreement for Production of F-15 Silent Eagle Conformal Weapons Bay
http://air-attack.com/news/article/4257/11-04-2010-Boeing-KAI-Sign-Agreement-for-Production-of-F-15-Silent-Eagle-Conformal-Weapons-Bay.html
Precies, en de enige ander kandidaat die nog over is (EF) doet voor spek en bonen mee (wellicht als stalking horse)
Saab to cut jet fighter price for Swiss:
Swedish defence firm Saab will cut the price on its Gripen fighter jet to ensure that it wins a Swiss order after French planemaker Dassault threatened to undercut its offer, a report said Wednesday.
In November, Dassault lost out on a bid to replace Switzerland's ageing F5 fighter fleet when the Federal Council opted instead to buy 22 Saab Gripen planes for an estimated 3.1 billion francs (2.6 billion euros).
"The price will be less than 3.1 billion (francs), Saab's Switzerland director Anders Carp was quoted by the Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger as saying.
Sources cited by the newspaper suggested the new price could be between 2.5 and 2.8 billion francs.
It is understood Saab wants to challenge a reported counter-offer by Dassault proposing 18 Rafale planes for 2.7 billion francs.
Dassault sent a letter outlining the proposal to the security commission of the Swiss parliament, which still has to approve the Gripen purchase.
The Swiss government must formally endorse the deal this month and it will then be sent to lawmakers for final approval later this year.
Saab has said Bern can sign the Gripen contract directly with the Swedish government which would act as a guarantor in the event of any difficulty in delivering the aircraft, Hakan Jevrell from the Swedish defence ministry told Tages-Anzeiger.
Last month, India announced it had selected Dassault as sole bidder to negoitate a sale of 126 Rafales estimated at $12 billion (9.1 billion euros).
http://www.expatica.com/ch/news/swiss-news/saab-to-cut-jet-fighter-price-for-swiss-report_206957.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/02/2012 | 14:20 uur
Saab to cut jet fighter price for Swiss:
Lang leve de knuppel om mee te slaan, er is nog hoop voor de Klu!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/02/2012 | 14:21 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/02/2012 | 14:20 uur
Saab to cut jet fighter price for Swiss:
Lang leve de knuppel om mee te slaan, er is nog hoop voor de Klu!
Deed de Nederlandse regering/kabinet, maar eens zoiets als de Zwitsers en een evaluatie van kandidaten en testvluchten erbij.
Bij ons wordt "officieel" geevalueerd vanaf papier en gegoogled op internet met "betrouwbare insite information" van Wiki e.d.
Hoezo goede kandidatenvergelijking ? ......... pfffff .... wassenneus
(2001) JSF.. F-35 ... Flying Turtle (2012) ... (verkooppraat van 2001, mooi op papier.... 2012 pas halverwege in proces... 11 jaar verder... een proces / toestel met vertragingen, prijsstijgingen, problemen met sofware, cockpit (DAS), constructie, gewicht, computer/processor, in de basis alleen interne wapenlast/geen externe, mindere CW, enz....)
S-Korea: F-35 may fail to meet key requirements
Korea Times' Lee Tae-hoon reports from South-Korea:
The United States Air Force (USAF) variant of Lockheed Martin's F-35 will likely fail to meet two of the Korean Air Force's key requirements — the ability to carry weapons externally and fly at Mach 1.6 (1,930 kilometers per hour) or faster, an industry insider said Tuesday.
He pointed out that the Korean military has clearly outlined the two key features as compulsory requirements in its request for proposal (RFP) released Jan. 30.
"The maximum speed of the F-35 Lightning II, which is still under development, is Mach 1.6, the bare minimum the Air Force has stated as a mandatory requirement," the insider familiar with the RFP said.
"The question is whether Lockheed Martin's F-35 can prove itself to fly at such an ideal speed as advertised when a team of Air Force pilots test fly the aircraft later this year."
(.....)
Another industry insider pointed out that Lockheed Martin will be unlikely to complete its envisioned development of external pods and pylons for its latest stealth aircraft in time. "Lockheed Martin has boasted that its aircraft is capable of carrying weapons not only internally, but also externally on its six external missile pylons," he said. "But it will be physically impossible to complete the development of the external pylons by the time the F-35 is delivered to Korea."
Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin's director of the Korea F-35 Campaign, also acknowledged that the external carriage may come as an option for Korea.
More: see link to SOURCE Korea Times
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/
Canadian Foreign Policy Journal: Bail out of F-35s while we can
While contracts to procure 65 F-35 fighter jets have yet to be signed, Canada has more reason that ever to back out, argue Michael Byers and Stewart Webb in the peer-reviewed Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, and in a related article published on iPolitics today.
Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. His co-author Webb is a research associate with the Salt Spring Forum.
Among the reasons Byers and Webb list to bail out of the F-35s are these:
Ballooning costs: Prime Minister Harper has said the planes would cost no more than $75 million a piece, but "Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page estimates the per-plane cost at more than US $128 million. The Pentagon has earmarked $151 million per plane and, in April 2011, the US Government Accounting Office's cost-estimate was $156 million."
Delays: Glitches and cost-overruns keep pushing back the delivery date, now already "years after" the date when the CF-18 jets the stealth fighters are meant to replace are set to be retired.
Better alternatives: Byers and Webb argue the F-35's stealth capacity makes it slower and heavier than what Canada is likely to need for future missions. The better alternative, they say, are Boeing's F/A-18E Super Hornets, which "already fly for the U.S. and Australia and cost only about $55 million each. As the latest version of the CF-18 series, they would also offer greatly reduced maintenance and training costs.
"The twin-engine Super Hornets are also more suitable for use in the Arctic than the single-engine F-35s.
"Although the F-35 offers stealth technology, the deployment history of the CF-18s calls into question whether Canada needs covert attack planes," argue Byers and Webb. "The CF-18s have only occasionally served overseas: a small number were based in Germany until 1990; 24 served in the 1991 Gulf War; 18 were involved in Kosovo in 1999; and seven served in action over Libya last year.
"In the three latter 'hot conflicts', Canadian aircraft were sent into action only after our allies had destroyed the enemy's air defences. In Libya, this initial phase was conducted using British and American cruise missiles as well as American B-2 bombers — and not the five year-old F-22 stealth fighters that the U.S. possesses but did not deploy."
Read more: SOURCE iPolitics
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/
Citaat van: Harald op 09/02/2012 | 09:08 uur
S-Korea: F-35 may fail to meet key requirements
Extra informatie :Wel 2 heel belangrijke punten van informatie over de F-35, welke ook voor Nederland gelden !
Feb 7/12: F-35 finagling. An exclusive Korea Times report notes that the F-35A will likely fail to meet 2 of the ROKAF's key requirements. it also explains how this failure will be circumvented, to keep the F-35A in the competition.
The problem is that F-35A is designed for a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, and almost certainly cannot achieve that speed while carrying drag-inducing external weapons. Which is a ROKAF requirement. Indeed, by the time the ROKAF wants the planes, the F-35A won't even be certified to carry and use external pylons, because that isn't a priority for the USAF. The way to keep the F-35A in the competition anyway is for the US government to essentially lie, and say that these attributes will be present by the time it's delivered to South Korea. They won't, and everyone knows it, but DAPA has already made compromises to widen the competition (vid. Jan 12/12), and is expected to play along. If the F-35A wins, they'll be able to assess comparatively minor contract penalties at the end, for non-compliance.http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/koreas-fx-multirole-fighter-buy-phase-2-the-race-is-on-02966/#contracts
IAF fighter deal: Rafale much cheaper than Typhoon; govt rules out review
Rajat Pandit, TNN | Feb 10, 2012, 04.19AM IST
NEW DELHI: It was the "substantially higher cost" of acquiring and operating the Eurofighter Typhoon that led to its ejection from the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to supply 126 fighters to IAF.
"The French Rafale jet, the eventual winner, beat the Typhoon hollow both in terms of life cycle costs and direct acquisition costs. The entire MMRCA project cost would have gone up by around Rs 25,000 crore if Typhoon had been selected over Rafale," a top defence ministry source said on Thursday.
Given all this, MoD has ruled out the possibility of "any comeback" by Typhoon despite carping by the four nations (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy) backing it, and will begin "exclusive and extensive negotiations" with Rafale-manufacturer Dassault Aviation next week. "The actual contract for the complex project should be ready for inking by September-October," said a source.
British PM David Cameron may have vowed to "encourage" India to reconsider its decision to go in for Rafale, instead of the EADS-manufactured Typhoon, in the largest "open-tender" military aviation deal going around the globe. But that is highly unlikely to happen.
"The fact is that the cost deferential between Typhoon and Rafale was very high... it would cost India around 22% to 25% more if the former had been selected. No government can agree to so much extra," the source said.
Both Rafale and Typhoon had been found "compliant" on all the 643-660 technical parameters laid down to meet specific operational requirements of India, after gruelling field trials by IAF test pilots spread over two years.
The other four jets -- the American F/A-18 'Super Hornet' and F-16 'Super Viper', the Russian MiG-35 and Swedish Gripen - were weeded out from the hotly-contested race last year since they did not meet all the "test points".
"We went by the book, first in the extensive technical evaluation and now in the meticulous commercial evaluation, without any external factors coming into play," said the source.
For one, the "life cycle cost" of operating the Typhoon over a 40-year period, with 6,000 hours of flying, was found to be "higher" than Rafale after extensive calculations of flight costs, spares, maintenance and the like. "The life cycle costs were actually the tool to determine who was L-1 (lowest bidder)," he said.
For another, the difference in the 'direct acquisition cost', which will actually be used to ink the contract, was even bigger. "The Typhoon's commercial bid was way too high. Rafale was the clear L-1 in both life cycle as well as direct acquisition costs," he added.
Dassault will now have to submit a detailed project report on the transfer of technology (ToT) to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL). While the first 18 jets will come in "fly-away condition'' from France from mid-2015 onwards, the rest 108 fighters will subsequently be manufactured under licence by HAL over six years.
"We will negotiate each and every element in the complex project with the French. Payments, as also the 50% offsets specified in the contract, will be spread over 11 to 13 years," he said.
The first jet built in HAL is expected to roll out by 2017-2018. Thereafter, HAL will deliver six jets per year, which will go up to 20 per year later. "HAL will achieve 85% technology absorption by the end. Incidentally, Typhoon's cost of ToT was also very high," he said.
This "mother" of all defence deals will later become the "granny", as reported by TOI earlier, since India will in all probability go in for another 63 fighters after the first 126 jets.
IAF is looking at these 126 new jets, apart from the ongoing progressive induction of 272 Sukhoi-30MKIs contracted from Russia for around $12 billion, to stem its fast-eroding combat edge against Pakistan and China. IAF has already identified Ambala and Jodhpur airbases in the western sector, followed by Hashimara in the eastern sector, to house the first MMRCA squadrons.
India is now finalizing details of the stealth Indo-Russian FGFA (fifth-generation fighter aircraft) to be built in the coming decades. IAF hopes to begin inducting the first lot of the 250 to 300 FGFA from 2020 onwards, which rough calculations show will eventually cost India around $35 billion.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IAF-fighter-deal-Rafale-much-cheaper-than-Typhoon-govt-rules-out-review/articleshow/11830845.cms
French jet also suited India's aircraft carrier plans
From Dr Dov Frishberg.
Sir, James Lamont and James Boxell ("A dogfight over Delhi", Analysis, February 7) provide an excellent analysis of the competition between Dassault's Rafale and Eurofighter's Typhoon for selection as India's future multi-role fighter aircraft. Obviously many design and technical details could not be covered in a single article intended for the general public. However, since the focus was on the selection process and its result – the nod ultimately given to the Rafale – there is one additional technical aspect that probably should be pointed out.
From the very beginning of concept specifications and definition of mission, the French sought a post-cold war common European multi-role fighter with carrier landing capabilities. In fact, the point being unique to France, this eventually led at least partly to its decision to develop a multi-role fighter of its own. The backers of the Typhoon have only recently committed to developing a carrier version and even if useful as such it is not clear that the final product will meet the current multi-role fighter specification, since a carrier version requires significant structural changes that entail an increase in weight as well other compromises. The Rafale has had a carrier model from inception, and one that is said to meet all the category-wide specifications for the multi-role fighter while demonstrating impressive low-speed stability, a crucial feature for carrier-based supersonic fighters.
As India's navy is in the process of purchasing or overseeing the indigenous construction of its first three true (non-V/STOL) aircraft carriers, with delivery planned for within the next few years, the Rafale was given a clear advantage.
If the carrier version is optioned by India, it will get an even more comprehensive and integrated package of technology transfer and development of production capability in its deal with Dassault Aviation. It will learn a lot about naval fixed-wing fighters and about their interoperability with carrier ships.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bb21bd4a-51be-11e1-a99d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lxUvvmDH
En dat zijn er dan weer 21 tot 31 minder....
Italy To Cut Back On F-35 Jet And Navy Frigate Orders - Report
ROME -(Dow Jones)- Italy will scale back planned purchases of the F-35 joint strike fighter as well as frigates, Corriere della Sera reports Friday, without saying where it obtained the information.
In a detailed article, the Milan-based daily said Italy would reduce its planned EUR15 billion purchase of 131 F-35 fighter bombers, made by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), to 100 or at most 110.
Defense Minister Giampaolo di Paola last month in a television interview defended the procurement program but said there might be some cuts as Italy slashes public spending to balance its budget by 2013. The U.K. Defense Ministry is postponing its final decision on how many F-35 planes to buy.
Italy'sFinmeccanica SpA (FNC.MI) has key roles in both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, a rival project that Corriere said may not proceed.
Italy will also reduce to six from 10 its order of FREMM-class frigates, which are to be made by Italian and French shipmakers.
Italy is also planning to slash the number of personnel in its armed forces by around 40,000, Corriere says. The cuts would focus on mid-ranking officers rather than soldiers, the paper adds.
A defense ministry spokesman said no decision has been taken on any of the measures the paper reported.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/italy-to-cut-back-on-f-35-jet-and-navy-frigate-orders---report-20120210-00135
Exclusive - Brazil jets deal heats up as Boeing freezes bid
By Brian Winter
SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Boeing has frozen the price on its bid for a multi-billion-dollar Brazilian air force jet contract, sources close to the deal told Reuters, as the global race to sell military hardware to emerging economic powers becomes more competitive.
Boeing is offering to sell its F-18 fighter to Brazil for the same price per plane as its previous offer during a round of bidding in 2009, the sources said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the bidding process.
The sources declined to divulge the dollar amount of the bid, which includes the cost of the plane as well as some future maintenance and replacement parts. But the offer essentially means that Boeing would assume the cost of inflation over the past two-plus years, while the planes would be more than 12 percent cheaper for Brazil in real terms compared to 2009.
"It's an unusual move ... that shows how much value is being placed upon this contract," one of the sources said.
Boeing is competing with France's Dassault and Sweden's Saab for the Brazil deal, which is expected to be worth more than $4 billion over time. Brazilian Defence Minister Celso Amorim told Reuters in January that he hopes the government will make a decision in the first half of 2012.
Boeing's offer illustrates how U.S. and European defense firms are aggressively pursuing deals in the developing world as their markets dry up at home due to budget cuts. Companies are also disputing jet contracts in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and South Korea.
Dassault last week entered exclusive talks to sell its Rafale to India, which could lead to the jet's first foreign order. The deal could make the Rafale a more viable option in the Brazilian bidding process, since an established production line would allow Dassault to offer more stable pricing over time and reduce the risk of cost overruns.
The Brazilian deal will be decided by more than just price. While the F-18 is widely believed to be cheaper than the Rafale, Amorim has said that Brazil will base its choice primarily on how generously the companies offer to share their proprietary technology. Brazil hopes that knowledge will help it build a homegrown defense industry, led by Embraer, which is making a return to its roots by investing in military aircraft.
President Dilma Rousseff also sees the deal as a key decision in Brazil's strategic alignment during the next few decades, officials have said. The planes will be used to help guard Brazil's borders, protect its recently discovered offshore oil fields, and project greater power as Latin America's largest economy continues its climb into the world's elite.
A spokesman for the Brazilian government did not reply to a request for comment. Boeing spokeswoman Marcia Costley said: "We're in a competition and can't comment on the specifics of our offering but what I can say is that Boeing can guarantee a price that has been trending downwards because we have an active production line and can leverage economies of scale."
OUTCOME UNCLEAR
Amorim's recent comments suggest that the Brazilian deal is entering its endgame after more than a decade of intrigue and last-minute surprises.
Rousseff's predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, all but declared Dassault the winner late in his presidency but left office without finalizing the deal. Rousseff then appeared to favour Boeing in comments shortly after taking office in January 2011, but recent developments including Dassault's India talks mean the final decision is now anybody's guess.
Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paulo reported this week that the government is leaning toward the Rafale again, though it did not provide a source for the information.
Rousseff is likely to personally lead the decision-making on the contract, Amorim said in January.
The decision may come at a moment when Rousseff will be under unusually heavy pressure to be cost-conscious. The government is expected to freeze about $30 billion in budget spending in the next few weeks, equivalent to just over 3 percent of this year's budget, in an effort to cool the economy and help contain inflation.
The budget freeze will likely be unpopular among members of Congress who will see their discretionary funds cut. That means that Rousseff will need to appear circumspect on other big purchases - including the jets - in order to avert a backlash.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/uk-boeing-brazil-idUKTRE8190XH20120210
UPDATE 1-Italy widely expected to scale back F-35 orders
ROME, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Italy seems certain to scale back its major investment in Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, heightening uncertainty over the troubled stealth jet's future.
Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola has said repeatedly since January that the country's originally planned order of the 131 supersonic warplanes by 2018 was being 'reviewed' because military spending cuts were necessary as part of Prime Minister Mario Monti's austerity plan to shore up public accounts.
General Claudio Debertolis, secretary general of the Defence Ministry and the country's armaments chief, confirmed to lawmakers on Tuesday that cuts were expected.
'There will be a revision of this Joint Strike Fighter programme to align it with disposable resources,' he said.
Italy will ask for about 30 fewer planes, Corriere della Sera daily reported on Friday, without citing its source. Panorama magazine gave the same number on Jan. 18.
Government sources and lawmakers told Reuters that it was premature to say how many of the F-35 fighters Italy will order because of uncertainty over the version of the aircraft designed for short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL).
This version is supposed to replace ageing Harrier jets on Italy's new hi-tech Cavour aircraft carrier.
On Tuesday Monti's Cabinet will examine the Defence Ministry's new spending plan that includes reducing F-35 outlays and personnel cuts, according to a government source. The minister will then detail the package to parliament on Wednesday.
The Pentagon's F-35 program office declined comment on Italy's plans, saying all of the partner countries would meet in Australia in March to discuss their production plans.
PENTAGON CUTS
Uncertainty over the Pentagon's most expensive current arms programme is growing as participating countries cut or postpone orders, and flight testing continues.
Washington is expected to announce on Monday that it will postpone production of 179 planes over the next five years, bringing the total that would have been ordered between 2013 and 2017 down to 244 from 423.
In January the Pentagon announced $487 billion in defence cuts over the next decade.
'It's reasonable to do what the American government is doing, reduce the number of orders and spread them out over a longer time frame,' said Federica Mogherini, secretary of the Italian Chamber of Deputies' defense committee and a member of the centre-left Democratic Party, the second-biggest bloc supporting Monti's technocrat government in parliament.
'It's not yet necessary to establish total number of planes we will order because costs are evolving, and all the technical problems have yet to be resolved,' she told Reuters.
Some of the most significant technical problems concern the short take-off model, which has had engine trouble, and needed an early redesign due to excess weight. Recently, there were concerns about metal fatigue in a bulkhead, overheating of parts, and excess vibration in doors for an air input port.
Only the United States and Italy have so far said they plan to buy the STOVL version of the aircraft.
Australia has also said it is rethinking its plan to buy 12 of the radar-evading jets, and Turkey has put off buying two of them. Britain said earlier this month that it won't make a firm commitment on the number of planes until 2015. The other partners in joint construction of the plane are Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada.
Italy is the third investor in the programme after the United States and Britain. Italy is in the process of ordering its first three planes for $240 million, Debertolis said on Tuesday.
Centre-left lawmakers called for defence cuts as Monti's 'Save Italy' austerity measures kicked in this year, hitting Italians with smaller pensions and higher fuel costs, property and sales taxes aimed at eliminating the budget deficit by 2013.
Two newspapers aligned with the centre-left Democratic Party criticized spending on the F-35 jet programme in a series of articles during the first half of January.
State-owned Finmeccanica is one of the subcontractors on the project. Finmeccanica's Alenia unit will assemble the planes purchased by Italy, the Netherlands and Norway.
'Even if the order we make is much lower than 131 we started with, Italy's work on the aircraft is still guaranteed,' Debertolis told lawmakers. 'We could have a significant decrease in orders and still keep Italy's industrial role intact.'
http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=mgwmlkg2dkvjmtg&ArticleHeadline=UPDATE_1Italy_widely_expected_to_scale_back_F35_orders
De Gripen bevindt zich in Zwitserland in zwaar weer.
Voor de Duistalige liefhebbers, zie de link:
«Den Gripen kann man vergessen»
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/Geheime-Berichte-Gripen-faellt-durch/story/18043475
In allen getesteten Bereichen schneidet der Gripen schlechter ab als der 15 Jahre alte F/A-18
http://www.20min.ch/news/schweiz/story/13736712
Doch auch der neue Gripen E/F, den die Schweiz beschaffen will, erreicht in keinem der sechs getesteten Bereiche die Note 6.
http://www.tagesschau.sf.tv/Nachrichten/Archiv/2012/02/12/Schweiz/Geheime-Testberichte-Miserable-Noten-fuer-Kampfjet-Gripen
Ik zie de kansen voor een Zwitserse Rafale aardig toenemen!
Slechter als een oude F/A-18? Dat is moeilijk te geloven.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 12/02/2012 | 12:42 uur
Slechter als een oude F/A-18? Dat is moeilijk te geloven.
Klopt het zal wel de sensatie pers zijn die dit schrijft.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 12/02/2012 | 14:10 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 12/02/2012 | 12:42 uur
Slechter als een oude F/A-18? Dat is moeilijk te geloven.
Klopt het zal wel de sensatie pers zijn die dit schrijft.
Sensatiepers of niet, de vergelijking is voornamelijk gebaseerd op de Gripen B/C.
Zonder nu het te benoemen als sensatie... de vraag is: is het waar?
Citaat van: Ace1 op 12/02/2012 | 14:10 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 12/02/2012 | 12:42 uur
Slechter als een oude F/A-18? Dat is moeilijk te geloven.
Klopt het zal wel de sensatie pers zijn die dit schrijft.
Lastig om het woord "klopt" te gebruiken, ik ben nieuwsgierig naar de feiten.
Government ignored air force over jets
The Swiss air force recommended buying French or European fighter jets to replace its aging fleet – not the Swedish fighters later chosen by politicians.
A confidential report published in the Sunday newspapers says air force tests in 2008 showed that Rafale fighters, made by French company Dassault Aviation, or Eurofighters built by a European consortium, were the best overall performers.
The cabinet acknowledged cost was a factor in its decision, announced on November 30, to order 22 Gripen fighters from Saab to replace the air force's Northrop F-5 Tigers.
There was no immediate government comment on Sunday.
According to the tests, the overall effectiveness of the Gripen MS21 "remains inadequate to achieve air supremacy in the face of future threats beyond 2015".
The report also said the plane "never reaches the 'Meet Minimum Expected Capabilities' in all type of missions".
In an interview published in the SonntagsZeitung and Le Matin Dimanche, Yvan Perrin from the rightwing Swiss People's Party and a member of the government security commission said Switzerland "could forget about" the Gripen.
"I knew the Gripen was worse than the two other planes, but I never thought it would be so bad," he said.
Perrin said the worst thing was that the Gripen couldn't even fulfil the demands of the air police.
"And so we lose our one and only argument for defending the plane in a national vote."
Opponents of any purchase of fighter jets want the decision to be put before Swiss voters. If necessary, the pacifist group Group for Switzerland without an Army (GSoA) and the Greens say they will launch an initiative calling for a moratorium on the purchase.
They had previously collected the requisite 100,000 signatures needed to call a vote on the issue, but had withdrawn it when the government announced that it would postpone buying the jets.
For his part, Maurer told a media conference on November 30 that the Gripen was by far the cheapest option of the three aircraft in contention. He put the total cost of the fleet of 22 aircraft at about SFr3.1 billion ($3.4 billion).
Since then Saab and Dassault have both mentioned lowering the price in order to get the contract.
The cabinet is set to rubber stamp the deal later this month. The dossier will then go to parliament, which will decided on the issue in either summer or the autumn.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Government_ignored_air_force_over_jets.html?cid=32108956
Citaat van: IPA NG op 12/02/2012 | 12:42 uur
Slechter als een oude F/A-18? Dat is moeilijk te geloven.
Misschien is dit wel het "slotoffensief" van de Zwitserse luchtmacht om te voorkomen dat
niet hun keuze besteld wordt (immers de voorkeur van de Zwitserse luchtmacht is de Rafale)
Tsja als je de Nederlanders moet geloven is alles behalve de F-35 ook waardeloos, ook al hebben ze er nooit in gevlogen.
Citaat van: dudge op 12/02/2012 | 17:15 uur
Doet mij toch wel heel vreemd opkijken.
Mij ook!
Rest de vraag is het zo? Of wordt er een spel gespeeld door diverse belanghebbenden?
A dogfight over Delhi
The Financial Times : Mon Feb 13 2012, 00:07 hrs
James Lamont & James Boxell
Sir Stephen Dalton, the UK's chief of air staff, hurtled down the runway behind the controls of a Russian-designed Sukhoi-30 at the Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal. The deafening roar of the engines of the mainstay of the Indian Air Force swept over a small band of observers gathered just over a year ago in the rising tropical heat.
Minutes later, a Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon built by a British, German, Italian and Spanish consortium took to the skies as part of a staged dogfight with India's French Mirages and Russian aircraft, designed to impress officials seeking to modernise an ageing fleet. Its near-vertical take-off was met with awed admiration.
Within the sights of Sir Stephen, a veteran of the first Gulf war - as well as his political masters and hundreds of aerospace executives - was one of the world's most sought-after jet fighter contracts. London, Paris and Washington were all vying to re-equip the world's largest democracy with 126 fighters — about one-10th of the force — seeing it as a chance to put a seal on a defining bilateral relationship of the 21st century.
The deal to supply India — with its fast-growing economy and geopolitical status, and concern about the threat from Pakistan to the north and China to the east — offered a European defence establishment suffering shrinking military budgets back home the chance to reshape the industry landscape.
But the mock battle was the closest the Typhoon came to the target. New Delhi chose Dassault's Rafale over the Eurofighter at the end of an eight-year competition. The significance of the agreement is being compared to that of the UK's record al-Yamama deal with with Saudi Arabia, signed in the 1980s. Optimists say it could be signed within eight months, joining a $9.3bn agreement for France to supply India with two nuclear plants and another to build it a modern conventional submarine fleet worth $4bn.
"This is a major win for France, and a major loss for the UK... French political backing has been essential in strengthening the French bid and the Rafale win is therefore also a major victory for President Nicolas Sarkozy," says Endre Lunde, an aerospace and defence consultant at IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy.
Rafale's selection is a bitter disappointment for all four nations in the consortium, and highlights Indian doubts about a pan-European partnership at a time of financial and political strain on the continent.
It has a particular sting for David Cameron. The UK prime minister identified the Indian market as one of the most important for Britain's exporters — but this opening gambit to his premiership has shown scant return even though accompanied by £1bn of aid in the next four years.
Eurofighter's backers thought it the lead contender, bringing more advanced technology and strategic clout than the Rafale, which had not been sold outside France. Their confidence soared after US rivals — Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin's F-16 Super Viper — were knocked out of the highly secretive medium multi-role combat aircraft contest last year.
In London and Berlin, contractors salivated at the idea of harnessing via industrial partnership a greater share of India's $36bn annual defence budget. A big European purchase would shift India away from reliance on Russia and show the US was not the only alternative as Delhi sought to rearm itself in light of mounting concerns about a more assertive Beijing.
The executives of the consortium partners were convinced Eurofighter offered a superior so-called "4th generation" aircraft suited to aerial combat and able to strike targets on the ground. They were also confident they had priced it competitively, in spite of some analysts' claims that the Rafale was up to 10 per cent cheaper.
But they overlooked Indian misgivings about security of supply for an aircraft built by four countries across a continent in financial turmoil and amid worries about the aircraft's radar capabilities. "The upside is that Eurofighter delivers you four countries as strategic partners," says Douglas Barrie of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, but "the down side is they have to negotiate with each other before they negotiate with you".
Eurofighter executives want a "detailed explanation" from India's Ministry of Defence of how calculations were made. They doubt that Dassault, which conducted its campaign from within the grey concrete walls of the French embassy, can deliver on its promises in terms of price and schedule.
Meantime, there is grim denial that the contest is over, and that India has overlooked a partnership that they say includes two of the more robust European economies, Germany and the UK, in favour of one with a country recently stripped of its triple A credit status. One veteran of the Eurofighter campaign vows not to give up until India makes the first down payment to the French, which might not be for years, claiming that arms deals of this magnitude are in play "until money is in the bank". BAE, one of the Eurofighter group partners, signalled that it was prepared to drop the price.
Delhi's version of events is that, in an era of corruption scandals and an activist Supreme Court, it has played the selection process entirely by the book. Defence officials say that, once the two models passed technical trials, the deciding factor was always going to be which was offered at the lowest price. They say the choice of Rafale, which some say came in $5m cheaper per aircraft, was one of the cleanest decisions in India's arms procurement history, with the minimum of political interference.
Defence experts, however, say other factors came into play in the form of investment agreements, whereby they were required to invest half the value of the contract back into India, and technology transfer. "The deal is beyond the aircraft," says Uday Bhaskar, a Delhi-based defence analyst. "If I was in the shoes of France looking at India, I would go beyond the fighter to the next big-ticket items of civil nuclear power and the [nuclear] submarine arena."
Bharat Karnad, a defence expert at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, says a likely bargaining chip was the prospect of the use of nuclear testing facilities in Bordeaux to shore up the thermonuclear shortcomings of India's nuclear arsenal. "The Indian government can't be blamed for misleading anyone. It was government-to-government from the very beginning.We wanted to know what things we would get with the fighter," he says.
Competitors suspect the nuclear element played a part in the decision. "Dassault got very aggressive on price and then Sarkozy rounded out the deal at the very end, possibly with some side-deal involving nuclear energy," one German official says.
Mr Sarkozy, months away from a presidential election that promises to be a bitter fight, and Dassault are quietly triumphant. He has underlined his determination by saying the final negotiations had "the full support of the French authorities" and would include technology transfers "guaranteed" by the state.
"Sarko is willing to give them whatever [technology] they want," says a French defence industry executive. "It's fair to say the technology has been around a while now so is not quite leading-edge. Remember we were talking about selling the Rafale to Gaddafi in Libya, so there are no qualms really."
Internal critiques on how the deal was lost will almost certainly heap blame on Germany — and, in some quarters, deepen existing regret that the UK, India's former colonial master, did not take the lead role in a more dynamic bid.
The German-led bid was excessively technical and lacked glossy display of what the Typhoon could do in conflicts, according to one critic. While Dassault's bid was captured in 20 pages, Eurofighter's ran to 150.
"The German government was very German. It helped as best it thought it could," explains one Berlin official. "But it was always trammelled by German public aversion to arms sales, and by the fact that it doesn't pursue a statist industrial policy like Paris... The fact that some countries do packages and the Germans don't is a fact you have to accept."
© 2012 The Financial Times Limited
Will Brazil follow India's Rafale bet?
Oliver Stuenkel
In a country where defence policy has traditionally not been a key aspect of overall foreign policy, seeing a former powerful Foreign Minister assume the Ministry of Defence is certain to raise some eyebrows. And so it happened when, in August 2011, President Dilma Rousseff chose Celso Amorim, the architect of Brazil's foreign policy under the Lula administration, to replace Nelson Jobim after the latter had openly questioned the capacity of several of his fellow cabinet members.
While Jobim was generally respected by the generals, several leading members of the armed forces voiced their concern about Amorim, who conservatives often accuse of being an anti-American ideologue. Yet no matter how one thinks about Amorim, there is a good possibility that the appointment of such a visible personality (and today's Foreign Minister's former boss) will boost the role of defence in Brazil's foreign policy.
Open tender experience
This may partly explain why Amorim's recent trip to India six weeks prior to the BRICS Summit in New Delhi has gained more media attention in both Brazil and India than Jobim's India trip a year earlier. Military ties between India and Brazil are growing, and India uses Brazilian Embraer aircraft for indigenous airborne early warning and control systems. Yet, for several other reasons, the timing made the trip special: only days before, India had announced that it would buy 126 French-made Rafale combat aircraft in a $11-billion deal.
In a somewhat unusual move, India agreed during Amorim's trip to share with Brazil some of its experiences of carrying out the open tender evaluation to select the best aircraft. This matters greatly to Brazil, as it is currently involved in a similar selection process. Brazil would like to buy 36 fighter jets, and the Rafale, F-18 and Gripen-NG are still in the race. Just as in India, the process was mired in controversy given its large size and the significant political implications. After President Lula seemed to favour the Rafale in 2009, the Dilma administration put the deal on hold in an effort to reduce public spending.
The big question now is how the decision to have Brazil study documents about India's selection process will affect the tender process in Brazil. India's purchase certainly makes the Rafale seem less risky. A decision to follow India's would not only boost ties between Brazil and France, but it would make India and Brazil the only two countries other than France to boast the Rafale jet, thus creating further potential for stronger ties in the area of military technology.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article2886306.ece
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/02/2012 | 22:44 uur
Will Brazil follow India's Rafale bet?
Als ook Brazilë (uiteindelijk) kiest voor de Rafale dan hebben we een uitstekende kandidaat voor onze eigen Klu en de BV Nederland.
- de productie is gegarandeerd voor vele jaren
- aantallen zullen voldoende zijn voor een betaalbare MLU en continue doorontwikkeling.
- prijs per unit kan dalen (blijkbaar is Zwitserland de eerste prospect met een positieve prijs aanpassing)
- lange termijn: Zowel India en Brazilië zullen in de toekomst hun eigen oplossing ontwikkelen, wellicht staan we in het geval van een samenwerking tussen Brazilië, India en Frankrijk aan het begin van een aantrekkelijke ontwikkeling waar in Nederland kan participeren wat een positieve uitwerking zou kunnen hebben tot ver na medio deze eeuw. (de opvolger van de Rafale die die vanaf 2050 tot ongeveer het einde van deze eeuw zal mee moeten gaan)
Te duur in aanschaf en onderhoud.
En Frans.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 12/02/2012 | 23:20 uur
Te duur in aanschaf en onderhoud.
En Frans.
Frans is een overkoombaar handicap, te duur is een keuze (daarnaast in Frans meterieel, voor zover ik het begrijp betrouwbaar en als ik diverse internationale media bronnen mag geloven 25% goedkoper dan de EF in aanschaf en exploitatie)
Toch geen blinde fixatie op de Gripen?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/02/2012 | 23:23 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 12/02/2012 | 23:20 uur
Te duur in aanschaf en onderhoud.
En Frans.
Frans is een overkoombaar handicap, te duur is een keuze (daarnaast in Frans meterieel, voor zover ik het begrijp betrouwbaar en als ik diverse internationale media bronnen mag geloven 25% goedkoper dan de EF in aanschaf en exploitatie)
Toch geen blinde fixatie op de Gripen?
Maar is is echt veel goedkoper, vooral in onderhoud.
En de beschikbaarheid is ook veel beter zoals de missie in Libië heeft laten zien.
Dat is voor mij dan doorslaggevend zeker ook omdat ik vind dat Nederland een redelijk formaat vloot moet hebben qua fighters.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 01:00 uur
[Maar is is echt veel goedkoper, vooral in onderhoud.
En de beschikbaarheid is ook veel beter zoals de missie in Libië heeft laten zien.
Dat is voor mij dan doorslaggevend zeker ook omdat ik vind dat Nederland een redelijk formaat vloot moet hebben qua fighters.
Ik ben het absoluut met jou eens dat Nederland een redelijk vloot moet krijgen en dat het "belachelijke" aantal van het huidige bestand aan F16's (68) wel een absoluut triest dieptepunt is.
De aanschaf prijs van de NG zou toch nog best eens een tegenvaller kunnen zijn, als ik de Zweedse pers goed heb begrepen. De exploitatie kosten zullen, voor de eerste helft van zijn technische levensduur aantrekkelijk zijn maar zodra, ergens rond 2030-35, een MLU op het progamma staat twijfel ik daar zeer aan (heeft louter met het gebruikersaantal te maken)
Kijk naar het huidige voorbeeld: Zweden
In 1997 werd de Gripen hier geintroduceerd en zoals het nu naar uitziet wordt de huidige Gripen al in 2017 (20 jaar na invoering) vervangen door de E/F (NG) dit omdat het, volgens Saab, goedkoper is om nieuwe E/F's aan te schaffen dan de bestaande vloot om te bouwen tot een E/F standaard.
Als ik deze lijn doortrek, en de Gripen NG wordt rond 2020 operationeel binnen de Klu dan kunnen we in 2030 op dit forum een nieuw topic openen met de titel: Vervanging of MLU Saab Gripen.
In dit kader durf ik nu niet te stellen dat de Gripen het beste alternatief voor Nederland is. Voor in land in een economische crisis lijkt de Gripen momenteel het meest aantrekkelijk alternatief, maar laten we er van uitgaan dat Nederland ook weer een economische groei en bloei zal kennen, bij voorkeur ruim voor het einde van dit decennium.
Misschien is het leasen van de Gripen van 2020 tot 2030/35 een overweging waard, zodat we deze als interim kist kunnen gebruiken zodat we aan het einde van de lease periode een alternatief voor de volgende 30 tot 40 jaar kunnen invoeren.
Italy F-35 Cuts Announcement Possible This Week
Feb. 12, 2012 - 06:03PM
By TOM KINGTON
ROME — An Italian government cabinet meeting on Feb. 14 is set to discuss cuts to defense programs that could include a trimming of the number of Joint Strike Fighters the country buys.
Italian defense minister Giampaolo di Paola will then detail the cuts in an address to the defense commissions of the lower house and Senate of the Italian parliament on Feb. 15.
Di Paola has been hard at work formulating cuts since austerity budgets late last year chopped 28 percent off 2012 defense ministry spending. Di Paola may attempt to cut about 40,000 troops from the Italian military's official headcount of 190,000 to reduce wage bills.
An idea of what is coming was provided by Italy's Supreme Defense Council, which groups senior ministers and the Italian president and meets occasionally. After a session held last week, the council said that Italy would need to cut troop numbers and seek to integrate its military more closely with other European forces, which would help stimulate "the process of economic and institutional integration within the European Union, which is truly fundamental for the future of our country."
Attention will also be focused on the JSF program, with a cut from 131 to about 100 aircraft seen likely. The Defense Council warned of cuts to "some significant investment programs."
The JSF program, with an expected outlay of 15 billion euros, has come under political attack in Italy as Monti cuts spending and raises taxes to tackle an economic crisis.
In response, senior defense procurement office officials addressed the defense commission of the lower house on Feb. 1 and 7 to talk up the program, on which Italy is a partner, Italy's procurement chief Gen. Claudio Debertolis said Italy was set to order three initial aircraft – down from four — for $240 million (182.2 million euros), which would be the first aircraft off the final assembly and check out line for the JSF that Italy is building at Cameri Air Base in northern Italy.
Work on stealth coatings for the aircraft would be under U.S. control at Cameri, he said, but "it is clear that the moment this technology is released, we will be the first to have it, since it is our national territory."
Gen. Domenico Esposito, the procurement office's director general for aeronautics programs, said that Italian firms had to date won $539 million in contracts on the program, of which $222 million had been won in 2011. Total work on the program could reach $14 billion, he added.
While 11,000 staff were now working on the Eurofighter in Italy, he added, the JSF program would employ 10,000, including 1,500 at Cameri, which will be run by Finmeccanica unit Alenia. A smaller firm, OMA in central Italy, has invested 5 million euros in new facilities where it will work with titanium components, and it is now hiring, he said.
Eurofighter Woes
Debertolis was gloomy about the future of the Eurofighter program, stating that "unfortunately, India has shown that the cost of the aircraft — the competition was lost above all on cost — as well as the air-to-ground capabilities are factors in making the aircraft uncompetitive."
Speaking during the second session before the commission on Feb. 7, Debertolis said the JSF would cost Italy less per aircraft than the Eurofighter, which had cost 79 million euros per aircraft.
The loss of the India competition would now hasten the end of Eurofighter production, he added, but there would be a migration of staff from that program to the JSF in Italy. The figure of 10,000 working on the JSF was a "guaranteed minimum," he said.
By building the Cameri line, Italy would eventually allow Italy access to U.S. technology that hitherto the U.K. has accessed first thanks to its close relationship with the U.S.
Even if Italy's order was "much lower" than the proposed 131 aircraft, he said, Italy's "entrepreneurial decision" to offer assembly work to other JSF partners, starting with Holland, would help keep the facility going.
Alenia is working as a second source provider of wingboxes for the aircraft, with more than 1,000 to be constructed. But Debertolis said that Alenia's costs were proving a headache.
"We have the problem that Lockheed Martin is asking a very low cost from Alenia, which is inferior to the costs that Alenia can achieve," he said.
That, he added, could threaten Alenia's ability to invest in the program.
"It is normal that Lockheed Martin has lower costs having started earlier. But Alenia's learning curve on the wings is starting. It is our job to ensure returns because otherwise, if there was no return on the wings, it would create a serious problem that would become political," he said.
Without being specific, Debertolis said an agreement on the subject would be reached in the next few weeks.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120212/DEFREG01/302120012/Italy-F-35-Cuts-Announcement-Possible-Week?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Is Canada Finally Getting Ready to Think About A Plan B For the F-35?
By David Pugliese
Defence Watch
After months, if not a year, of insisting that there were no issues with the F-35, are Canadian defence officials finally starting to consider the need for a Plan B on the procurement?
As reported in Postmedia, Canada is to convene a meeting with seven other international partners as the countries rethink their own orders for the stealthy new fighter jet.
Other nations have already been sounding the alarm in light of F-35 delays, reports about increasing costs, and U.S. plans to alter its delivery timetable. They have been reviewing the numbers of aircraft they will purchase and looking at putting in place plans to mitigate the problems. This has been going on in some countries for months.
In January, Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said in a statement the Canadian government is still committed to the F-35 program, but that he had ordered Defence Department officials in Ottawa to investigate what implications the Pentagon's decision would have on Canada.
But before, and after, that statement was issued, Fantino as well as DND officials have been adamant that the F-35 project and Canada's procurement has – and will be – smooth sailing. There are no delays, they have said. They are no cost increases, they have claimed. The plane is not only amazing but performs flawlessly. Fantino and MacKay have also suggested that those who raise questions about the $14 billion to $30 billion (depending on what numbers are used) purchase are against "the troops."
The Postmedia report noted: Lockheed Martin Corp., the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, and U.S. officials who run the $382-billion US weapons program are anxiously preparing for a meeting in Australia in mid-March where the partners – Canada, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Australia, Turkey and the Netherlands – will outline their revamped procurement plans. But Canada has tentatively scheduled a meeting of the partners at its embassy in Washington before the Australian meeting to get an update on the program and better coordinate their approach. Canada's plan to purchase up to 65 of the jets is based on a very specific timetable, and a slower ramp-up in production could force a tough decision between paying more per plane or extending the life of the country's CF-18s."
As Fantino and Defence Minister Peter MacKay has stated countless times, the Conservative government has planned to have Canada receive its F-35s in a staggered delivery between 2016 and 2023, when they are in "peak production"' to ensure the best price. At the same time, Canada's fleet of CF-18s is due to retire by 2020.
Lockheed has said that U.S. plans to slow down production will hamper its efforts to lower the cost of the plane.
Postmedia and Reuters have reported on the state of play in other F35 countries. Here is a brief rundown:
Britain, the biggest contributor to the joint development program, said in a 2010 defense review that it would cut its planned order of 138 F-35 fighter jets and decided to pull out of the short-takeoff variant completely. Last week, a U.K. official said the government would not decide until 2015 how many F-35s it will buy.
Turkey has already halved its initial order of four planes and Australia is rethinking when to buy the next 12 of its initial order of 14, given the U.S. delays.
Italy, the only other buyer of the short-takeoff version of the F-35, has hinted at possible "significant" reductions in its overall buy of 131 planes, with Italian media reports citing a cut of 30 planes.
Norway's parliament approved the purchase of four F-35 training jets last summer and is slated to decide this year on plans to buy up to 52 more planes.
Dutch Defense Minister Hans Hillen visited Lockheed's mile-long F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas last month, telling Radio Netherlands after the visit that a stream of negative reports about the program was causing him political headaches at home.
"The price, the rumours about technical shortcomings. Are they true, and if they are not: why is it that they keep doing the rounds?" he said. The Netherlands plan to buy 85 F-35s in total, but has put off a final decision until a new cabinet takes office, which may not happen until 2015.
So back to Canada's plans. If there is a Plan B and a deviation of the original plan it will be a major reversal for DND and Canadian Forces officials, as well as for MacKay. For years they have so vehemently insisted that there were no issues with the aircraft, its cost or delivery timetable.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/02/12/is-canada-finally-getting-ready-to-think-about-a-plan-b-for-the-f-35/
Brazil "very likely" to choose French fighter jet: sources
8:36 p.m. EST, February 12, 2012
SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Brazil is "very likely" to choose France's Rafale fighter jet to refurbish its air force, government sources say, a decision that would award one of the emerging-market world's most coveted defense contracts to a jet whose future was in doubt only two weeks ago.
President Dilma Rousseff and her top advisers believe that Dassault Aviation's bid to sell at least 36 Rafales offers the best terms among the three finalists, the sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The other two bidders are Boeing's F-18 and Saab's Gripen.
Rousseff has cast the deal as a watershed decision that will help mold Brazil's military and strategic alliances for the next few decades as it continues to establish itself as a leading economic power. The contract will have an initial value of about $4 billion but will likely be worth considerably more over time once maintenance and follow-on orders are included.
Rousseff previously had concerns about the Rafale because the jet had not found any buyers outside France. That raised doubts about whether Dassault would have the scale necessary to build the jets at a reasonable cost and maintain them over time.
The sources said those concerns were assuaged when India announced on January 31 that it had entered exclusive talks to buy 126 Rafales. Brazilian Defense Minister Celso Amorim traveled to New Delhi last week to discuss the deal with Indian officials and examine documents related to Dassault's bid.
"The India deal changed everything," one of the Brazilian sources said. "With India's decision, it's now very likely the Rafale will be the winner here."
The sources said that Dassault offered the best combination of a high-quality aircraft and the sharing of proprietary technology that Amorim has said is critical to the deal. Brazil hopes to use that technology to expand its own budding defense industry, led by aircraft maker Embraer .
Dassault touts the Rafale as an agile, medium-sized aircraft with low operating costs that can be more quickly deployed than its bulkier competitors. Those attributes may appeal to Brazil, which has no significant problems with its neighbors and plans to use the aircraft mainly for defensive purposes such as patrolling its recently discovered offshore oil fields.
Boeing's offer of technology has yet to be finalized but the sources said they believe it cannot compete with Dassault's bid because the United States has historically placed tight restrictions on the sale of military technology abroad.
If confirmed, the deals would enhance France's partnerships with two of the world's biggest up-and-coming economic powers - Brazil and India. They could also provide a boost to President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has cast himself as a champion of French industry and an energetic salesman of the Rafale in particular as he faces a tough re-election fight this year.
The sources said that unexpected developments, especially a breakdown in India's talks with Dassault, could still cause Rousseff to change her mind.
They also said her decision would probably not be announced until after France's April-May election, in an attempt to keep the deal from becoming overly politicized.
MEMORIES OF U.S. TENSIONS OVER JETS SALE
Brazil's air force contract is one of several deals in developing countries that have been highly contested by European and U.S. defense companies as their home markets suffer due to budget cuts. Companies are also competing for jet contracts in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and South Korea.
Brazil's bidding process has gone through several ups and downs over the years. Rousseff's predecessor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said in 2009 that Brazil would choose the Rafale. However, he left office without finalizing the deal.
Rousseff was extremely close to Lula as his chief of staff, but upon becoming president in January 2011 she surprised her Cabinet ministers by asking them to re-evaluate the bids from scratch. A month later, Rousseff told visiting U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that Boeing's F-18 was the best jet among the three finalists, but she still wanted better terms on the technology transfers.
The F-18 is widely believed to be cheaper than the Rafale. Boeing recently confirmed that it will offer the F-18 to Brazil at the same per-unit price as during the last round of bidding in 2009, Reuters reported on Friday.
Ultimately, though, Rousseff grew frustrated by what she perceived as Boeing's inability to improve the guarantees on the transfers, the officials said. Rousseff is a moderate leftist who has built her presidency around policies she believes will help Brazilian industries in areas from oil exploration to auto production.
The officials said that Rousseff was also wary of a 2006 incident in which the United States blocked the sale of Embraer's Super Tucano military aircraft to Venezuela's leftist government. Washington had the power to veto the deal because Embraer's planes contained U.S. technology.
In a separate incident in 2009, Embraer said it was temporarily blocked from selling commercial jets to Venezuela because they contained U.S. communications systems.
The episodes raised doubts about whether Brazil would face similar restrictions in the future with the technology it received from Boeing as part of the F-18 bid. "Nobody's ever forgotten what happened with Venezuela," one official said.
Brazil's point man in the confrontation with the United States in both Embraer incidents was Amorim - he was Lula's foreign minister at the time and Rousseff appointed him as her defense minister in August.
Despite her misgivings regarding Boeing, Rousseff also did not want to choose a jet that might not even be in production a decade into the future. In December, French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet warned that Dassault would stop production of the Rafale in 2021 if it did not win any export orders.
Within days of India's announcement regarding talks for the Rafale, Amorim traveled to New Delhi to gauge the bid's terms and its likelihood of proceeding as planned.
Amorim told the Times of India on Wednesday that Indian officials "promised to give us some documents ... such as basic rules on the tender process that we could compare to ours."
Brazil is not the only country that appears to be suddenly following India's lead. French newspaper La Tribune reported on February 2 that Dassault could soon seal a sale of at least 60 Rafale fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates, turning around a deal that also appeared to be a lost cause.
(Reporting by Brian Winter; Editing by Kieran Murray)
Copyright © 2012, Reuters
Scandal as MoD reveal that Harriers were still being upgraded when they were sold for parts to the US
By Annabelle Fuller
Last updated at 8:09 PM on 12th February 2012
Comments (7) Share
A Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Defence has revealed that the controversial scrapping of the entire UK Harrier fleet took place whilst the planes were still undergoing a £500 million upgrade.
The retirement of the jets, eight years earlier than scheduled, leaves the country without carrier-borne aircraft.
As to their fate, a second batch of aircraft has now made its way from RAF Cottesmore to Southampton where they are being shipped to America, having been sold to the US Marine Corps to provide spares for their craft. The paltry £116 million for which they were sold was a fraction of the cost of their upgrade.
Scrapped: Britain's Harrier force has been sold to the US Marine Corps for spare parts
The upgrade was part of the Joint Upgrade and Maintenance Programme (JUMP) which incorporated a major upgrade to the aircraft's avionics and weapons systems, enabling the aircraft to carry a variety of current and future weapons.
These included Maverick air-to-surface missiles, Brimstone anti-armour missiles and AIM9L Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defence. Avionic improvements included the Rangeless Airborne Instrumentation Debriefing System, Successor Identification Friend or Foe and the Digital Joint Reconnaissance Pod. A new, stronger composite rear fuselage was also fitted.
This week, as Argentina continued their war of words over the Falklands by making complaints to the United Nations, the National Audit Office has raised concerns over the defence cuts, saying they could leave the country without an adequate future fighting force.
HMS Illustrious to Rosyth for a £40million refit, but the former aircraft carrier will only carry helicopters after the upgrade
The lack of manoeuvrable assets has been a big problem in recent months, with the Libya uprising leaving Britons stranded in the country and now the South Atlantic tensions may lead many in the government wondering if the wrong decision has been made.
For whilst HMS Illustrious has finished its refit at Rosyth, it has been converted to take helicopters. The next generation of carrier borne aircraft, Joint Strike Fighter, have been besieged with problems and the UK's order has yet to be delivered.
India were interested in a version of the Typhoon which would also be able to land on aircraft carriers, something which the UK fleet have not been adapted to do. However, their decision to choose the Rafale which the French already have a carrier version of, could be the result of a lost opportunity for BAE and the MoD where a joint programme could have reduced the research and development costs for both sides.
Problems: The delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter, designed to replace the Harrier, is far from certain
Instead, we are left in a position where we lack any carrier borne aircraft and suitable aircraft carriers whilst the rumblings in the South Atlantic continue and show no signs of dissipating.
All this would be bad enough, but the taxpayer footing the bill for major improvements which will only benefit the USA will leave a bitter taste in the mouth for many.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2100163/Scandal-MoD-reveal-Harriers-upgraded-sold-parts-US.html#ixzz1mFHrdqp1
Financial Year 2013 :
F-35 : -2 stuks, 29 toestellen totaal, dus weer minder toestellen
F-18 : -2 stuks, nog steeds worden er dus F-18E/F aangekocht, totaal 24 stuks F-18E/F en 12 stuks EA-18G
FY2013 Budget Plan: 12% Cut in Spending on Aircraft
Funding for aircraft decreased in the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal as compared to 2012, according to documents obtained by Defense News.
The FY2013 budget calls for $47.6 billion for aircraft programs, down from $54.2 billion.
The Pentagon would continue to buy General Atomic's Predator series drones at a reduced pace with the U.S. Air Force planning to buy 24 MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft for $885 million. The U.S. Army would buy 19 MQ-1C Grey Eagle versions of the drone for $750 million.
Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk program has been trimmed, but the Defense Department would still buy three aircraft for NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance program and three more for the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance program. Those moneys come from research and development funding.
The Army would buy 234 RQ-11 Raven drones for $184 million.
While it's not buying any new C-130J aircraft for it regular forces, the Air Force would continue to buy Hercules transports. The service wants to buy seven aircraft for Special Operations missions — two new AC-130 gunships, four MC-130J tanker-transports and one HC-130 aircraft for $835 million. That's down by four from last year.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program for the Air Force, Navy and Marines is slowing down its ramp-up to full rate production to reduce concurrency. Procurement would drop by two jets to 29 aircraft: 19 of those jets are to be Air Force F-35A model jets, four are to be Navy carrier-based F-35Cs, six are to the Marine F-35B jump jet variant.
The planes are being bought for $6.1 billion, and the Pentagon would spend $2.7 billion on development work.
The Navy is planning to buy the T-6 primary trainer at a pace of 33 aircraft for $286 million. Three planes were cut compared to last year's buy.
The Pentagon would trim its V-22 Osprey buy for 2013. The Marine Corps would buy 17 aircraft compared to 30 in FY2012. The Air Force would buy four, down by one from the year before. The goal is to buy 458 aircraft in total — 408 for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 50 for the Air Force. The Pentagon would buy nearly $2 billion in Osprey spare parts in 2013.
The Army would remanufacture 40 older Apaches into the new Block III configuration and building 10 aircraft from scratch. That's up from a grand total of 19 aircraft that the service bought last year. The Army would pay $801 million for the remanufactured aircraft plus $370 million for the new helicopters.
The Army would also buy 44 Chinooks for $1.4 billion: 25 of those would be new, 19 remanufactured. That's down from 47 last year.
The Army also wants to buy 34 UH-72 utility helicopters for $272 million. That's down from 39 in 2012. And the service would continue building the UH-60 Black Hawk at a rate of 59 aircraft in 2013 for $1.3 billion. That's down from 72 in 2012.
The Air Force, by contrast, is not buying any helicopters but would budget $60 million to "missionize" the UH-60M helos it has already bought.
The Air Force would spend $808 million to upgrade its fleet of F-22 Raptors with Increment 3.1 hardware and software modification. The new configuration increases the jet's strike capabilities. The service is also continuing work on Increment 3.2 that would further increase the jet's already potent air-to-air sting.
The KC-46 program continues with $1.8 billion in developmental funding.
The Navy would buy five E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft for $984 million. That continues production at a steady pace from last year's budget.
The service would buy 26 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for $2 billion. That's down by two jets from 2012, but the service is getting 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack variant aircraft for $1 billion.
Growler production remains unchanged from FY12.
The Marine Corps would continue with its H-1 helicopter program. The service would buy 15 new UH-1Ys, and eight new AH-1Z attack helicopters. It would also remanufacture four older AH-1s into the Z-model. One more attack variant was added to replace a combat loss. The Corps would $852 million for the 28 aircraft.
The Navy would spend $849 million for 19 MH-60Rs and $484 million for 18 MH-60S helicopters.
The service would continue to ramp up production of the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. The Navy would buy 13 aircraft in 2013 and is requesting money for long lead items for 17 more in 2014. The service would spend $3.2 billion on the P-8 program in FY13.
The Air Force is requesting nearly $1.3 billion for C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft upgrades.
The Pentagon would spend $423 million on continued production of the radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile for a total of 180 missiles. It would also spend $200 million for 314 infrared homing AIM-9X dogfighting missiles.
The Pentagon would buy four Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle rockets for $1.7 billion. It would also buy two GPS satellites for $1.3 billion and two Space Based Infrared System satellites for $950 million.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120212/DEFREG02/302120002/FY2013-Budget-Plan-12-Cut-Spending-Aircraft
Switzerland, leaked evaluation report
Swiss Newspaper Le Matin is publishing today extensive extracts of the Swiss evaluation performed in 2008 and 2009.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z6n3yfaFWa0/Tzggu38w5xI/AAAAAAAACYA/4CFa5EQfouc/s1600/Swiss_eval_executive_report.png
As in the previous limited leak, the report clearly states that the Rafale was the prefered aircraft of the Swiss Air Force because of a better technical efficiency in all missions : Air 2 Air, Air to Groud and Recce missions.
The Eurofighter is always lagging behind the French fighter because of less efficient sensors and ECM suite. The Gripen does not even manage to reach the Minimum Espected Capabilities in most of the assessed fileds. According to some High ranking officer of the Swiss Air Force which are eager to bring their insight on the issue to the parliament, the way the Gripen was allowed to pass the technical evaluation is still a mystery.
In November 2011, the Swiss Federal Council had decided to select the Gripen on financial grounds despite the negative technical appreciation of the Swiss Air Force.
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/
Switzerland, Evaluation report quick analysis
As the Armasuisse report is not always perfectly readable I've reproduced the charts and compiled the general appreciations for both evaluations. (NWA1 and NWA2)
NWA phase I is the first 2008 evaluation with real flight trials:
The results show a sharp advandage for the Rafale especially for Escort, Srike and Recce missions.
The Rafale is also the only aircraft that was able to engage multiple ground targets simultaneously in one pass.
The only mission where the Eurofighter almost catches up with the Rafale is Air Policing. The Gripen is definitively not in the same leage as far as Air to Air missions are concerned. However, we note that it is ranked slightly above the Eurofighter for Air to Ground and Recce missions.
Tabel 1 : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nz9e6f-JnXU/TziCyQusXJI/AAAAAAAACYI/WpzV1tfDMAc/s1600/Swiss_eval_NWA1.png
See the Swiss Air Force appreciations in the table below. Their final recommandation in all missions is the Rafale with the Eurofighter as a possible alternative.
Tabel 2 : http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E2bVIJBstFw/TziCzCeyzdI/AAAAAAAACYM/ATw0IaCWB4g/s1600/Swiss_eval_NWA1_appreciations.png
NWA phase II is the second evaluation conduced in 2009 based on technical data of 2015 scheduled capabilities provided by the 3 manufacturers. (see upgrades below)
Tabel 3 : http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-izLfxamIAXQ/TziD2_dm40I/AAAAAAAACYY/roHUQHawG9w/s1600/Swiss_eval_NWA2_upgrades.png
The results and appreciations below :
Again the ranking remain the same with the Rafale clearly in front especially for Strike and Recce missions.
Tabel 4 : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kIKYZRaatds/TziEPYs2M5I/AAAAAAAACYg/85l1hsPFSLs/s1600/Swiss_eval_NWA2.png
See the Swiss Air Force appreciations when the upgrades are taken into account in the table below. Their final recommandation in all missions is still the Rafale with the Eurofighter as a possible alternative.
Tabel 5 : http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AEkc_Qb53Fk/TziEQKeEOwI/AAAAAAAACYk/_HnLb2pI_Ls/s1600/Swiss_eval_NWA2_appreciations.png
Each mission effectiveness is an average a several sub-taks effectiveness relevant to the given mission.
The detail sub-task ranking is only available for the Air policing mission (see below)
This is the mission where the Typhoon is ranked almost as good as the Rafale due to superior aircraft performance (apparently mainly related to its high climb rate and capabiliy to supercruise at mach1.4), slightly better pilot workload (Direct voice Input for recurrent basic tasks would explain that) and slighly better engagement (which could be explained by higher altidute/speed/missile max range)
Tabel 6 : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u9A1B1CJxwY/TziFDQ6i_YI/AAAAAAAACYw/Zw1pk2MaDoQ/s1600/Swiss_eval_AP1.png
It is worth noting that the Air Policing mission, although important, is a quite low risk mission. In more challenging Air to Air task such as OCA or DCA missions where the target can be highly dangerous and where ECM/RCS become of primary relevance, the Rafale seems to prevail with a more comfortable margin
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/
Citaat van: Harald op 13/02/2012 | 10:17 uur
Switzerland, leaked evaluation report
Dit Zwitserse verhaal zou ik als buitenstaander niet alleen als poging willen beschouwen van de luchtmacht om alsnog de Rafale aan de inventaris toe te voegen maar minimaal op feit gehalte willen onderzoeken.
In sommige landen is de Gripen uitsluitend top of mind om uitsluitend budgetaire reden iets wat we in het achterhoofd kunnen en moeten houden.
Duurkoop is niet altijd goedkoop (vaak wel) maar penny wise pound foolish... is een kreet waar uiteindelijk niemand mee gediend is. (behalve politici die 4 tot 8 jaar later zowiezo exit zijn)
Volgens de Nederlandse raportten voldoet de gripen toch ook niet? Alleen de F-35 zou voldoen. Dat dit raport totale onzin is weten we inmiddels dus wat dat betreft zou mij iets vergelijkbaars niet verbazen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 17:46 uur
Volgens de Nederlandse raportten voldoet de gripen toch ook niet? Alleen de F-35 zou voldoen. Dat dit raport totale onzin is weten we inmiddels dus wat dat betreft zou mij iets vergelijkbaars niet verbazen.
Geen conclusies trekken vanuit een aanname. dit geeft jou, net als de JSF lobbyist, een gekleurd brilletje.
Maar dat deze gedachte bij je opkomt kan ik me voorstellen. Met al deze ophef ben ik eigenlijk meer voor feiten.
Het rapport is geen totale onzin.
De Rafale, Typhoon en Gripen C/D voldeden allen aan de Zwitserse eisen volgens uitlatingen gedaan door majoor-generaal Markus Gygax in november jongstleden.
Feit is ook dat de Gripen C/D minder presteerd dan de Rafale en Typhoon.
MAAR, aan te schaffen aantallen binnen het vastgestelde budget geven de doorslag!
Als de Zwitserse begroting toestaat dat er 22 Rafales worden aangeschaft, dan stijgt de Gripen C/D naar de tweede plaats.
Helaas voor de Zwitserse luchtmacht is er geen pecunia voor 22 Rafales. Dus stijgt de Gripen C/D, waarvan wel 22 stuks kunnen worden aangeschaft, vervolgens naar de eerste plaats.
Dus is de Gripen C/D block MS 21 of de NG (E/F) variant ook voor Nederland nog steeds de beste kandidaat F-16 vervanger.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 17:46 uur
Volgens de Nederlandse raportten voldoet de gripen toch ook niet? Alleen de F-35 zou voldoen. Dat dit raport totale onzin is weten we inmiddels dus wat dat betreft zou mij iets vergelijkbaars niet verbazen.
De Gripen C/D is in 1996 zelf door de toenmalige BDL Ben Droste 2 weken aan de tand gevoeld. Hij vond het een uitstekende F-16 vervanger. Enigste nadeel vond hij, dat als de F-16 vervanger zou gaan instromen in 2010 (!). De Gripen C/D al 14 oud zou zijn.
De Gripen C/D viel in 2001 alleen af door een te kleine payload -range verhouding.
Stealth capaciteiten weegden niet zo zwaar, als KLu buitenstaanders denken. De F-35A werd voor de KLu de beste jachtbommenwerper gevonden. En het wordt na oplossing van de vele kinderziekten ook een uitstekend Battlefield Air Interdiction jachtbommenwerper.
De Rafale scoorde 10% lager en zat qua prestaties & vaardigheden net onder de F-35A. De Typhoon eindigde op ruime afstand van de Rafale op nummer 3. Aangezien de KLu een jachtvliegtuig zoekt wat primair een air-to-ground taak heeft met een secundaire air-to-air taak. De reden hiervoor is dat de dreiging van jachtvliegtuigen tegenwoordig aanzienlijk minder is dan vroeger. Tegelijkertijd is er een trend gaande van een toenemende surface-to-air dreiging.
Citaat van: Poleme op 13/02/2012 | 20:03 uur
Aangezien de KLu een jachtvliegtuig zoekt wat primair een air-to-ground taak heeft met een secundaire air-to-air taak. De reden hiervoor is dat de dreiging van jachtvliegtuigen tegenwoordig aanzienlijk minder is dan vroeger. Tegelijkertijd is er een trend gaande van een toenemende surface-to-air dreiging.
Wat moet NL dan met een F35, met name bij die surface-to-air dreiging?!
Citaat van: Poleme op 13/02/2012 | 20:03 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 17:46 uur
Volgens de Nederlandse raportten voldoet de gripen toch ook niet? Alleen de F-35 zou voldoen. Dat dit raport totale onzin is weten we inmiddels dus wat dat betreft zou mij iets vergelijkbaars niet verbazen.
De Gripen C/D is in 1996 zelf door de toenmalige BDL Ben Droste 2 weken aan de tand gevoeld. Hij vond het een uitstekende F-16 vervanger. Enigste nadeel vond hij, dat als de F-16 vervanger zou gaan instromen in 2010 (!). De Gripen C/D al 14 oud zou zijn.
De Gripen C/D viel in 2001 alleen af door een te kleine payload -range verhouding.
Stealth capaciteiten weegden niet zo zwaar, als KLu buitenstaanders denken. De F-35A werd voor de KLu de beste jachtbommenwerper gevonden. En het wordt na oplossing van de vele kinderziekten ook een uitstekend Battlefield Air Interdiction jachtbommenwerper.
De Rafale scoorde 10% lager en zat qua prestaties & vaardigheden net onder de F-35A. De Typhoon eindigde op ruime afstand van de Rafale op nummer 3. Aangezien de KLu een jachtvliegtuig zoekt wat primair een air-to-ground taak heeft met een secundaire air-to-air taak. De reden hiervoor is dat de dreiging van jachtvliegtuigen tegenwoordig aanzienlijk minder is dan vroeger. Tegelijkertijd is er een trend gaande van een toenemende surface-to-air dreiging.
De prestaties en vaardigheden van de F-35 zijn alleen nu wel anders dan de aannames in 2001 en 2008, alleen al de payload standaard heeft de F-35 alleen een interne payload, de externe is optie deze moeten ze nog verder ontwikkelen en heeft ook invloed op de constructie.
Dus standaard is de payload van de F-35 1300 kg, alleen intern
Wat zou er nu uit de vergelijking komen die ze in 2001 gemaakt hebben ???
In Libië schijnt het zo te zijn geweest dat 19 Rafales 1900 sorties vlogen terwijl 5 Gripens 695 sorties vlogen.
Dus 100 per Rafale en 139 per Gripen.
5 Gripens maakte 2000 vlieguren terwijl de 19 Rafales 6000 uur vlogen. Een Gripen zou dus 27% meer tijd in de lucht hebben doorgebracht (400 tov 316 uren).
Ik kan daar alleen geen bron voor geven.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 21:37 uur
In Libië schijnt het zo te zijn geweest dat 19 Rafales 1900 sorties vlogen terwijl 5 Gripens 695 sorties vlogen.
Dus 100 per Rafale en 139 per Gripen.
5 Gripens maakte 2000 vlieguren terwijl de 19 Rafales 6000 uur vlogen. Een Gripen zou dus 27% meer tijd in de lucht hebben doorgebracht (400 tov 316 uren).
Ik kan daar alleen geen bron voor geven.
Zonder bij te tanken in de lucht?
Zover ik het begrijp was/is de Viking niet in staat om de standaard NATO brandstof te gebruiken (gewone burger brandstof).
Nu weet ik niet of in jouw getallen de transit uren verwerkt zijn, want dat zou een ander beeld geven in de feitelijke operationele inzet.
Het klopt inderdaad dat er problemen waren, zowel met de brandstof als de communicatie met NAVO toestellen maar ondanks dat zou het toestel toch een veel hogere inzetbaarheid hebben als de Rafale. En dit is eigenlijk ook helemaal geen verassing want dat is de Gripen juist zo om geroemd.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 21:52 uur
Het klopt inderdaad dat er problemen waren, zowel met de brandstof als de communicatie met NAVO toestellen maar ondanks dat zou het toestel toch een veel hogere inzetbaarheid hebben als de Rafale. En dit is eigenlijk ook helemaal geen verassing want dat is de Gripen juist zo om geroemd.
Het maakt mij des te nieuwsgieriger naar de evaluaties van India en Brazilië (naast die van Zwitserland)
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 21:52 uur
Het klopt inderdaad dat er problemen waren, zowel met de brandstof als de communicatie met NAVO toestellen maar ondanks dat zou het toestel toch een veel hogere inzetbaarheid hebben als de Rafale. En dit is eigenlijk ook helemaal geen verassing want dat is de Gripen juist zo om geroemd.
Kan zijn maar als er geen additionele Rafale uren nodg waren vanwege de transit tijden (carrier en bij tanken in de lucht), dan gaat de vergelijking niet op.
Wat waren de daadwerkelijke inzet uren boven Libië? (het lijkt me nog al een verschil of je een retourtje Italië moet maken en dan ook nog een operationele inzet boven Libie moet vliegen).
Nog een operationeel verschil was natuurlijk de feitelijk inzet, prachtig vernoemd als "proven in battle", wat natuurlijk ook BS is omdat de Gripens niets meer en niets minder gedaan hebben dan onze F16's, rondjes vliegen en foto-trippen.
Volgens Italiaanse media bronnen gaat het mes in het aantal F35 en wordt het aantal teruggebracht van 131 naar 90! (weer 41 minder)
Via Google translate:
ROME - The Ministry of Defense waiver of 40 F35 fighter.
http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/politica-italiana/difesa-di-paola-caccia-f35-esercito-monti-1117999/
Citaat van: dudge op 14/02/2012 | 12:05 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/02/2012 | 12:00 uur
Volgens Italiaanse media bronnen gaat het mes in het aantal F35 en wordt het aantal teruggebracht van 131 naar 90! (weer 41 minder)
Via Google translate:
ROME - The Ministry of Defense waiver of 40 F35 fighter.
http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/politica-italiana/difesa-di-paola-caccia-f35-esercito-monti-1117999/
Het zou me niets verbazen als de Italianen uiteindelijk alleen een squadron F35B zouden bestellen.
Dit gaat, net als bij de meeste, om het terugbrengen van voornemens. De uiteindelijke orders zullen nog een stuk lager uitvallen, vermoedelijk, dan de voornemens.
dat is ook mijn gedachte : alleen de B-versie voor de vliegdekschepen van Italie, dus een stuk of 30
Alleen zitten ze met het dilemma dat ze hun zinnen gezet hebben op "assembly facility" om daar alle F-35 toestellen te bouwen voor hun zelf en Noorwegen, Denemarken, Nederland, Belgie, Spanje, Turkije. Maar als ze flink gaan snijden in hun eigen aantallen, komt deze "facility" misschien ook wel op losse schroeven te staan door belissingen in Amerika.
Defense News reports:"An Italian government cabinet meeting on Feb. 14 is set to discuss cuts to defense programs that could include a trimming of the number of Joint Strike Fighters the country buys.
Italian defense minister Giampaolo di Paola will then detail the cuts in an address to the defense commissions of the lower house and Senate of the Italian parliament on Feb. 15."
"Attention will also be focused on the JSF program, with a cut from 131 to about 100 aircraft seen likely. The Defense Council warned of cuts to "some significant investment programs."
The JSF program, with an expected outlay of 15 billion euros, has come under political attack in Italy as Prime Minister Mario Monti cuts spending and raises taxes to tackle an economic crisis."
"Even if Italy's order was "much lower" than the proposed 131 aircraft, he said, Italy's "entrepreneurial decision" to offer assembly work to other JSF partners,
starting with Holland, would help keep the facility going."
Read more..... SOURCE Defense News
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/
Problemen in Zwitserland voor de Gripen keuze, Evaluatie rapport is uitgelekt, zie link onderaan voor rapport in pdf
Ministry Under Pressure Over Gripen Fighters
The defence ministry is examining allegations of purposely ignoring unfavourable results of evaluation reports to buy controversial Swedish fighter jets.
A spokeswoman said Defence Minister Ueli Maurer had no knowledge of the confidential reports leaked to a Sunday newspaper.
The allegations are the latest in a series of controversies over the purchase of new jets to replace the F-5 fighters for the air force.
The cabinet last November decided to buy 22 Gripen fighters, worth SFr3.1 billion ($3.4 billion) from Swedish company Saab, rejecting two other rival offers. But parliament is still to decide on the funding for the acquisition amid a challenge by a pacifist group to block it altogether in a nationwide vote.
Tests carried out in 2008 apparently showed that the Gripen fighter was clearly inferior to its rivals, Dassault's Rafale and Eurofighter.
A report compiled later gave the Gripen slightly better marks but pointed out that it could not fulfil crucial demands of policing Swiss airspace.
The latest allegations have prompted a flurry of comments by parliamentarians and newspaper reports.
Critics called for Maurer to step down if he was found lying or hiding crucial facts. Others see the controversy as part of ongoing efforts to outbid rivals.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: In announcing its choice of the Gripen on Nov. 30, 2011 the Swiss defense ministry stated that "This evaluation showed that the three aircraft met Swiss military requirements, and were thus suitable for consideration as our country's new fighter jet," which is manifestly untrue, as can be seen in the report below.
However, defense minister Maurer said at the time that "The purchase of Gripen might not mean that we get the best fighter plane in Europe. But we'll have a plane that meets our expectations – and we haven't planned to break any world records in this area," implying that while Gripen was not the best performer, it was clearly the least expensive.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/132728/swiss-minister-in-hot-water-as-fighter-evaluation-report-leaks.html
the Swiss Air Force's evaluation report of the three fighters (24 pages in PDF format) on the Sonntags Zeitung website.
http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/bilder/2012/07/TTE_SwissAirForce_confidential_release.pdf
UPDATE 1-U.S. slowdown on F-35 jet buy to raise cost: Lockheed
Tue, 14th Feb 2012 16:09
By Walter Gibbs
OSLO, Feb 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. plan to drag out purchases of the F-35 J
oint Strike Fighter jet will increase the total cost paid by the United States and international allies, Lockheed Martin said on Tuesday.
'It will raise the overall average cost of the total procurement of all the airplanes bought,' Tom Burbage, head of Lockheed Martin's F-35 programme, said after the Pentagon announced it would slow procurement of the fledgling radar-evading aircraft.
The Pentagon on Monday confirmed plans to postpone production of 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, including $1.6 billion by funding 13 fewer aircraft in fiscal year 2013.
It was the third programme restructuring in recent years as costs escalate and timetables slip in the biggest U.S. weapons programme ever.
Burbage told Reuters the average cost would 'go up somewhat' but that the price for particular buyers or time frames would not necessarily rise. He was in Oslo to discuss Norway's proposed purchase of up to 56 F-35s.
The United States still plans to buy 244 jets in the next five years and 2,443 altogether, but the new delay could prompt allies who are helping fund the programme to rethink their own tentative orders of more than 700 aircraft.
Norwegian Deputy Defence Minister Roger Ingebrigtsen said Norway's purchase plan would be firmed up with little change and presented to the parliament for approval by early April.
Before that, he said, he would attend a gathering of international buyers called by Canada ahead of a formal meeting in mid-March where they are to outline firm order plans.
'It is a kind of fact-finding meeting,' Ingebrigtsen said. 'What is the price in Canada and what is the price in Norway? Why do we sometimes see different numbers for different countries?'
Burbage said the price foreign air forces pay to the U.S. Defence Department for their F-35s was volume dependent so that the U.S slow-down 'changes the dynamics of the cost equation'.
'When we don't see an increase in volumes at the rate we anticipated, we don't continue to reduce costs at the rate we anticipated,' he said, adding that he saw volumes rising again in about two years as large international purchases kick in.
Britain, the biggest outside contributor to F-35 development, has said it would wait until 2015 to decide how many jets to buy.
Turkey has halved its initial delivery request for four planes, part of a much larger order that it has not yet reduced, and Italy has hinted at possible 'significant' reductions from its tentative 131-jet order.
Burbage said none of the international partners had scaled back their formal commitments yet.
'We still have all the countries engaged at the same numbers where we started, and we see no restriction in our way to delivering planes to the Norwegian air force on the schedule that they desire,' he said, promising those deliveries in 2018.
Last month Norway's defence chief said the country might make do with 52 F-35s instead of 56 as originally proposed at an assumed total price of 61 billion Norwegian crowns ($10.7 billion) in real 2011 currency.
($1 = 5.7138 Norwegian krones)
(Reporting by Walter Gibbs; Editing by Jodie Ginsberg) Keywords: NORWAY LOCKHEED/
COPYRIGHT
Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.
Switzerland open to offers on Gripen jet deal
Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:23am EST
* Defence minister says Gripen "satifactory"
* No concrete rival offers to Gripen so far
Feb 14 (Reuters) - Switzerland would consider alternatives to the 22 Gripen jets it has agreed to buy from Saab to replace older warplanes, its defence minister said on Tuesday.
Flanked by his military chiefs of staff, Ueli Maurer told a news conference the government would be ready to look at any serious rival bids.
Maurer has come under pressure to justify the choice of plane after a Swiss newspaper published extracts of two secret test reports showing the Gripen fared worse than originally thought in tests against rivals.
Test reports published by the SonntagsZeitung suggested the Gripen did not "meet minimum expected capabilities" to carry out air policing missions.
Maurer on Tuesday described the Gripen as "satisfactory" according to a grading-scale used throughout the whole evaluation process.
Switzerland has wrangled for three years over how to replace its aged Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, purchased in 1976 and 1981. In November the government opted to buy 22 JAS-39 Gripens for a price tag of 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.4 bln).
Maurer said at the time that Saab's offer was considerably cheaper than rivals the Rafale built by France's Dassault Aviation and EADS's Anglo-German-Italian Eurofighter Typhoon.
"The cabinet chose the Gripen because it fulfilled the technical requirements...and was the most cost-efficient plane and the only plane that could be financed under the available budget," Maurer said on Tuesday.
Even aside from wrangling over the supplier, the purchase of fighter jets is contentious as the government will have to cut back on education and agricultural spending to fund the order.
According to recent newspaper reports, Dassault put forward a counter offer to supply Switzerland with 18 Rafale jets for 2.7 billion Swiss francs instead of an original demand of 4 billion francs for 22 jets.
Maurer said on Tuesday the government had not received any formal counter offers. "We've asked the French to give us a really concrete offer," he said. "If we really do get a lower offer, we'd be able to look at it."
Since the Swiss cabinet's decision, Dassault's Rafale has emerged as the preferred bidder to supply India. Brazil is also likely to chose the Rafale, government sources told Reuters.
The Swiss government will present parliament with a purchase order by June, which will be considered by the security commissions of both the upper and lower houses. The final decision on the jets is expected by the end of 2012. (Reporting by Caroline Copley; Editing by Erica Billingham)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/swiss-defence-jets-idUSL5E8DE6DK20120214
John Ivison: Ottawa sets sights on armed drones
John Ivison Feb 14, 2012 – 11:30 PM ET
The Harper Cabinet has discussed a potential solution to its F-35 fighter jet dilemma — the use of armed drones.
Sources said the Department of National Defence is preparing to tender a contract for around six remotely piloted vehicles such as the MQ-9 Reaper, which the U.S. Defence Department estimates cost around $30-million each. A spokesman for DND dismissed the suggestion that armed drones could replace the F-35s, or augment a reduced number of aircraft, as speculation.
The Canadian military has previously leased drones from Israel and the CU-170 Herons flew reconnaissance missions in Afghanistan. But the Herons were never armed and a move to fit munitions on to any unmanned aircraft would inevitably draw criticism from opposition parties. When the idea was raised two years ago, then New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris dismissed it as "morally repugnant" and "robot warfare."
However, delays and cost overruns to Lockheed Martin's F-35 strike fighter jet are causing headaches in many NATO capitals. Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, admitted Tuesday that "the program has not been without problems in timelines and cost estimates."
He said the government remains committed to giving the air force "the best opportunity for mission success" but refused to confirm that the government still intends to buy 65 F-35s.
In Question Period, the Prime Minister said that there is a budget for the F35s and "the government will operate within that budget."
The problem for the Tories is that the cost of the planes is likely to rise considerably from the estimated $75-million per plane. Buying 65 jets would burst the $9-billion budget allocated for the F-35 purchase.
The U.S. Defence Department estimates the cost of each F-35 at $195-million this year. The Pentagon said Monday it intends to reduce spending on the F-35s next year and delay future spending because of the soaring costs and technological problems.
The cost per unit is expected to come down as more jets come off the production line but sources suggest the number of planes that Ottawa will be able to afford will be closer to 40 than 60.
Plan B may be a combination of cheaper jets and armed drones. U.S. Defence Department figures suggest the price of Boeing's Super Hornet is $86-million this year and, in an open competition with other planes like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale, that price could drop considerably. Maintenance and training costs would also be much lower than the untested F-35.
But it is the addition of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that will add to the speculation the government is re-considering the whole F-35 purchase.
The Wall Street Journal reported in December that the Obama administration is trying to sell armed drones to its allies to ease the burden on the U.S. in conflicts like Afghanistan and Libya. So far, Britain is the only country that has been allowed to buy drone technology, purchasing 12 Reapers. But both Italy and Turkey have applications pending to buy armed UAVs.
Canada's Defence Department has long talked about purchasing UAVs. A spokesperson for San Diego-based General Atomics said her company has been trying to sell its Predator and Reaper drones to Canada for years but she was unable to confirm that a new contract has been put out to tender.
The attraction for the government, apart from the price, is the increasing flexibility of UAVs to conduct domestic patrols along Canada's borders and mount offensive missions. Robert Gates, the U.S. Defence Secretary, has said that, while manned aircraft are still needed, the U.S. Air Force must recognize "the enormous strategic and cultural implications of the vast expansion in remotely piloted vehicles." The U.S. is now training more pilots for UAVs than any other weapons system and they are used increasingly for "hunter-killer" roles. The MQ-9 now carries laser guided bombs, Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, and tests are underway to allow it to use Stinger air-to-air missiles.
The Harper government has argued consistently one reason to stay in the F-35 program is the industrial benefits that have accrued to some Canadian companies. However, one industry insider said more work would likely flow from an order for a less expensive jet from Boeing or Saab. The government is set to unveil a comprehensive review of the Canadian aerospace industry, led by former Industry Minister David Emerson. If his review were to encompass the F-35 purchase, it could provide the Tories with the perfect cover to cancel a program that is turning into a political millstone.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/john-ivison-ottawa-sets-sights-on-armed-drones/
India Chose Rafale On Cost But Britain Demands Second Chance for Eurofighter
Singapore Air Show » February 14, 2012
February 14, 2012, 7:30 AM
France's Dassault Rafale fighter won India's $10 billion-plus medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contest for 126 combat jets because its direct acquisition and life-cycle costs were 22 to 25 percent lower than those of the Eurofighter Typhoon. This verdict came from "a top [Indian] defense ministry source" quoted by The Times of India newspaper in Delhi last Friday. AIN believes that the report is credible. Negotiations on the contract should be completed by October, the source added.
Although Eurofighter Typhoon bid leader EADS Cassidian issued a dignified statement expressing disappointment but respecting the decision, there has been much consternation from British government ministers over the Indian verdict. Prime Minister David Cameron encouraged India to reconsider, and international security minister Gerald Howarth even suggested that Cassidian and BAE Systems would be submitting a revised price offer. Former defense secretary Liam Fox said that BAE should have led the Typhoon bid, rather than EADS. British newspapers talked darkly of undue influence by French lobbyists, and of French government promises to transfer nuclear reprocessing technology to India. But The Times of India source in the Indian defense ministry said that "we went by the book...without any external factors coming into play."
But some British officials involved in the Typhoon bid have distanced themselves from the ministerial comments, which some might interpret as sour grapes or even disrespectful to India's right to make its own defense acquisition choices. They believe that Indian officials handling the MMRCA contest have been transparent throughout the process. They are hoping that the Indian defense ministry will debrief the Typhoon team on why the Rafale bid was preferred, although there is no legal obligation for it to do so. The Typhoon camp are fully aware that in a number of previous Indian defense acquisitions, the preferred bidder has failed to secure the final contract–raising the prospect of another twist in the MMRCA saga.
According to the rules established in the original MMRCA solicitation, no trade-off of performance against cost was allowed in the final stage of the evaluation, when the commercial bids were unsealed. No information has leaked on which of the two finalists scored more in the technical evaluation, which was extensive. In a similar technical evaluation done by the Swiss air force in 2008-09, and recently leaked to the Swiss media, the Rafale was the clear winner (see box). In any case, neither finalist in the Indian contest was able to demonstrate the required active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. However, Team Rafale will have shown French commitment and tangible progress toward the introduction of an AESA, which is still not an unequivocal requirement of the four Eurofighter partners.
The cost of the MMRCA could still influence the project's conclusion. The $10.4 billion that was originally earmarked for the acquisition always seemed unrealistic, especially after four other contenders were eliminated after the technical evaluation.
The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-16IN, MiG-35 and Saab Gripen NG should all have been less expensive to acquire (and in some cases to operate) than the Rafale or Typhoon. Moreover, a 20-percent decrease in the value of rupee against the U.S. dollar last year alone will affect the eventual cost, which could be $7- to $8 billion greater than first stated.
Before the contract is signed the following points need to be nailed down: the level of technology transfer for the 108 aircraft to be built in India; the coproduction plan; whether and how any government-furnished equipment is to be integrated; the guaranteed mean time between failure rates; and whether to choose an engineering support package or a performance-based logistics package. The life-cycle cost data supplied by the MMRCA contenders covered 6,000 hours of flying over 40 years.
The 18 aircraft to be supplied in flyaway condition comprise 12 single- and six twin-seaters. They should be delivered within 48 months of the contract taking effect, with the complete weapons package. Of note, the MMRCA weapons and stores specification includes anti-radiation and anti-ship missiles, a reconnaissance pod and a buddy refueling pod.
Neither the Rafale nor the Eurofighter has an anti-radiation missile, nor is one planned for either type. The Exocet anti-ship missile has already been integrated on the Rafale. The Typhoon bid included the Saab Rbs15 or the MBDA Marte ER anti-ship missile, neither of which are required by any of the Eurofighter partner nations. No reconnaissance or buddy refueling pod has yet been integrated on the Typhoon. The Thales Areos recce pod has already been fitted to the Rafale, which also already does buddy refueling.
The Indian production will comprise 74 single- and 34 twin-seaters. Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) has been designated as the lead production agency for the airframe and engine, and as system integrator. The first deliveries are due four years after contract signing, in a three-phase transfer of production. HAL is expected to produce six aircraft in that first year, 10 in the second and the total of 108 by the seventh year of local production.
The Indian government expects licensed production of engine accessories, avionics, radars, systems, role equipment and tooling. Some or all of this could be undertaken by privately owned Indian defense companies that have been chosen by the successful bidder. The MMRCA package also includes simulators and other training aids, and ground handling and support equipment.
There are significant concerns about how the offset requirement–50 percent of the value of the foreign exchange component of the commercial proposal–will be honored. The new Indian defense procurement policy outlined in 2006 was vague, and subsequent alterations have not provided much clarity. The bidders could buy defense products only from India, or invest in the Indian defense industry.
This rule will have prevented EADS from offering some attractive offsets related to the production of Airbus commercial airliners. Moreover, foreign direct investment in Indian companies is currently limited to 26 percent of equity. An increase in this limit to 49 percent has been mooted specifically to help the MMRCA process, but any such change could delay the contract process.
In any event, the industrial benefits for Indian industry should multiply after the MMRCA enters service. Following the 24-month warranty period, the lifetime support and depot level maintenance must be provided by an Indian partner. "To ensure high aircraft availability, each operating base will have second-line facilities, including servicing of radar and avionics LRUs, electronic warfare equipment and hydraulics. An engine repair section and test bed will need to be set up," said an Indian air force engineer. There will be three operating bases, each with two squadrons. Depot-level maintenance will benefit from technology transfer including metallic and composite structures, canopy, radome, castings and forgings, landing gear, engine including Fadec, turbine and compressor blades, wheels and brakes, hydraulics and fuel system, including in-flight fueling.
Thales and its Indian partner, Samtel Display Systems (SDS), will be a major beneficiary of the Rafale's selection. "The MMRCA has provided the opportunity for Thales to grow this into a bigger company. We can build a center of excellence for airborne technologies that can be sold for different platforms," Puneet Kaura, executive director of SDS, told AIN. This could include infrared search-and-track systems for India's Sukhoi Su-30 fighters and the fifth-generation fighter aircraft being jointly developed by India and Russia. SDS is already slated to make a significant contribution to the $2 billion-plus Mirage 2000 upgrade that was awarded to Thales last July.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2012-02-14/india-chose-rafale-cost-britain-demands-second-chance-eurofighter
aantallen F-35 Canada geen 65 meer, maar minder toestellen om binnen budget te blijven door het duurder worden van aanschafprijs ten gevolge van de vertragingen en verschuivingen in aankopen door US.
Canada Appears to Waver on F-35 Purchase
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper opened the door Feb. 14 for a possible cut in the number of F-35 fighter jets Canada will buy, after reports that the United States was scaling back its purchase plans.
"There's a budget for that and the government has been clear, we will operate within that budget," Harper said in parliament about the project.
The Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to form the backbone of the future U.S. air fleet and 11 other allied countries have joined the program.
But defense officials have struggled to keep costs under control, with each plane's price tag doubling in real terms over the past decade.
Ottawa has budgeted Can$8.5 billion to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets plus another Can$7.5 billion for lifetime maintenance.
If the United States now buys fewer of the F-35 fighter jets, the price for each would further increase, and if Canada is not ready to spend more, it would have to scale back the number of jets it buys to stay within budget.
Defense Minister Peter MacKay earlier sidestepped questions about a possible reduction in the number of jets purchased.
But Canada's minister responsible for military procurement, Julian Fantino, told public broadcaster CBC on Feb. 13 when asked if he was open to reconsidering the purchase: "I think Canada, as with all other countries, has to be very much plugged into the environment, the economics of the day."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120214/DEFREG02/302140013/Canada-Appears-Waver-F-35-Purchase?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
oorzaak en gevolg ... volgens mij wordt het nu omgedraaid, het ligt zeker niet meer aan LM maar aan de international partners, want als zij minder F-35 kopen wordt de prijs hoger. Dus ALS Nederland geen 85 F-35 toestellen koopt (deze aantallen worden nog steeds genoemd), maar minder. Dan zal de aanschafprijs zeker hoger zijn.
Bedoelt LM dan te zeggen : eigen schuld.. dikke bult, minder toestellen ... hogere prijs.
International F-35 Sales Vital to Cost Stability: DoD
The U.S. Defense Department is banking on international sales of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next five years to keep the program cost stable, according to a senior Pentagon official.
If those foreign sales do not materialize over that period, know as the future years defense plan (FYDP), the price tag of the jet would grow for both U.S. and allied aircraft, according to Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acting acquisition executive.
"There are some foreign sales that we do assume take place in the FYDP and that does affect what we think we can get for the money in our budget in our FYDP," Kendall said after a speech at a defense industry conference in Arlington, Va.. "So if it changes, that would change that result."
Kendall's comments come as international support for the behind-schedule and over-budget F-35 program wanes due to European financial woes. Published reports state Italy is preparing to announce plans to reduce its buy of the jet.
Other European F-35 partners include Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and United Kingdom.
The Pentagon's 2013 budget proposal, which was sent to Congress on Feb. 13, includes $9.2 billion for development and to purchase 29 aircraft
DoD removed 13 aircraft from its 2013 purchasing plans and 179 total jet purchases between 2013 and 2017 so it can fix problems that have come to light during development.
The Pentagon is purchasing aircraft at the same time it is testing them, a process called concurrency. The downside to this method is that early production jets might have to be modified to address flaws discovered during flight testing.
"There is some money in the budget for concurrency," Kendall said. "If we exceed that amount, then it will probably have to come out of production."
Pentagon officials claim the most recent restructure of the F-35 program will save DoD $15.1 billion over the next five years.
Kendall, who has been nominated to become the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said he has yet to hear anything definitive about foreign partners modifying purchase plans. He said he spoke with one F-35 partner yesterday, who said their country was "probably on track in the near term."
"We're encouraging them to stay with the program, obviously," Kendall said of the program's international partners. "We think we're going to get there. We're going to ramp up [production] as soon as we can. But they all have to make their own plans based on how they see the situation. We're being very open with them about the design issues that we see and that we're working on so they can make informed decisions."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120214/DEFREG02/302140010/International-F-35-Sales-Vital-Cost-Stability-DoD?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Swiss open to concrete offer from Dassault for jets
Feb 14 (Reuters) - Switzerland would be prepared to examine a concrete offer from rival Dassault to buy figher jet planes if it were to be presented with one, its defence minister said on Tuesday.
"We've asked the French to give us a really concrete offer," Defence Minister Ueli Maurer told a news conference on Tuesday.
"If we really do get a lower offer, we'd be able to look at it. We only have a deal with Sweden when the parliament's given the funding and there's possibly been a referendum," he said.
In November the government opted to buy 22 JAS-39 Gripens for a price tag of 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.4 bln) over rival bids for the Rafale built by France's Dassault Aviation and EADS's Anglo-German-Italian Eurofighter Typhoon.
Newspapers hreported that Dassault had made a cheaper counter bid, but Maurer said he had not received another offer from Dassault.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/swiss-defence-fighterjets-idUSWEA169020120214
Citaat van: Harald op 15/02/2012 | 12:12 uur
Swiss open to concrete offer from Dassault for jets
Handig spelen die Zwitsers wel... Ben eens benieuwd wat hierop volgt? Een 2de Dassault "succesverhaal" na India?
(of haalt EF Typhoon het alsnog ginder :) )
En wat dan met Brazilië, waar de fransen ook hopen op een beslissing in Dassault's voordeel.
2012 zou wel eens hét beste jaar ooit kunnen worden met nog wat mogelijke bijkomende orders in het Midden Oosten...
Italy to Cut F-35 Fighter Jet Orders as Part of Defense Revamp (excerpt)
ROME --- Italy will reduce its planned order of Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighter jets and trim the size of the military as part of defense-spending cuts, Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said.
Italy will purchase 90 F-35s rather than the originally planned 131, Di Paola said in Rome in testimony before a joint defense committee of both houses of Parliament today. The nation needs to cut the military's size by about 30,000 soldiers and 10,000 civilians, he also said.
Di Paola said Italy "has already invested 2.5 billion euros" ($3.3 billion) in the F-35, parts of which are to be provided by Finmeccanica SpA, the nation's biggest defense contractor. "We had committed to buying 131, now the review of the program leads us to believe that the goal of 90 aircraft can be pursued, a third less," he said.
The announcement is another blow to Bethesda, Maryland- based Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the U.S. military's costliest program. The U.S. Defense Department will cut $1.6 billion from the F-35 program, part of $18 billion in weapons cuts proposed in the budget that President Barack Obama sent to Congress on Feb. 13 for the year beginning Oct. 1. (end of excerpt)
Click here for the full story, on the Business Week website.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: It is unclear how effective a fleet of 90 aircraft will be as the aircraft will have to be shared between the Italian air force (F-35A) and navy (F-35B).
The navy originally intended to buy 32 F-35Bs to equip its two aircraft carriers, one of which, the Cavour, is the centerpiece of Italy's Mediterranean security policy.
If this number is reduced, there will be enough F-35Bs to equip only one carrier, while it if is maintained the air force, with 58 aircraft, will barely be able to form a single F-35 wing, once aircraft are deducted for the training and conversion unit.
Given that the F-35's price will likely continue to grow, it is not clear that Italy's investment in the F-35 will be militarily justifiable and financially affordable.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132777/italy-to-cut-f_35-orders-to-90-from-131.html
Citaat van: www.defense-aerospace.com op 15/02/2012 | 16:06 uur
(EDITOR'S NOTE: It is unclear how effective a fleet of 90 aircraft will be as the aircraft will have to be shared between the Italian air force (F-35A) and navy (F-35B).
The navy originally intended to buy 32 F-35Bs to equip its two aircraft carriers, one of which, the Cavour, is the centerpiece of Italy's Mediterranean security policy.
If this number is reduced, there will be enough F-35Bs to equip only one carrier, while it if is maintained the air force, with 58 aircraft, will barely be able to form a single F-35 wing, once aircraft are deducted for the training and conversion unit.
Given that the F-35's price will likely continue to grow, it is not clear that Italy's investment in the F-35 will be militarily justifiable and financially affordable.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132777/italy-to-cut-f_35-orders-to-90-from-131.html
In hoeverre is die stelling over de Italiaanse Luchtmacht vergelijkbaar met die van NL?!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/02/2012 | 22:21 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 13/02/2012 | 21:52 uur
Het klopt inderdaad dat er problemen waren, zowel met de brandstof als de communicatie met NAVO toestellen maar ondanks dat zou het toestel toch een veel hogere inzetbaarheid hebben als de Rafale. En dit is eigenlijk ook helemaal geen verassing want dat is de Gripen juist zo om geroemd.
Het maakt mij des te nieuwsgieriger naar de evaluaties van India en Brazilië (naast die van Zwitserland)
Volgens de Indiase luchtmacht voldeden naast de Rafale en Typhoon ook de F-18E, Gripen en Su-35 aan de eisen.
De Rafale is de favoriet van de Braziliaanse politici. Een Rafale aanschaf versterkt de politieke banden tussen beide landen, die traditioneel al sterk zijn. De industrie is voor de Gripen NG, want die geeft hen de meeste kans op technologie transfer.
De Braziliaanse luchtmacht leiding heeft de Gripen NG op nummer 1 staan. Slechte economische tijden staan nog duidelijk in hun memorie gegrift. En dan kies je voor een jachtvliegtuig vloot met de laagste exploitatie kosten.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 15/02/2012 | 18:31 uur
Citaat van: www.defense-aerospace.com op 15/02/2012 | 16:06 uur
(EDITOR'S NOTE: It is unclear how effective a fleet of 90 aircraft will be as the aircraft will have to be shared between the Italian air force (F-35A) and navy (F-35B).
The navy originally intended to buy 32 F-35Bs to equip its two aircraft carriers, one of which, the Cavour, is the centerpiece of Italy's Mediterranean security policy.
If this number is reduced, there will be enough F-35Bs to equip only one carrier, while it if is maintained the air force, with 58 aircraft, will barely be able to form a single F-35 wing, once aircraft are deducted for the training and conversion unit.
Given that the F-35's price will likely continue to grow, it is not clear that Italy's investment in the F-35 will be militarily justifiable and financially affordable.)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/132777/italy-to-cut-f_35-orders-to-90-from-131.html
In hoeverre is die stelling over de Italiaanse Luchtmacht vergelijkbaar met die van NL?!
Zowel de Noorse als de Nederlandse luchtmacht ziet een jachtvliegtuig vloot van 50 kisten met een totale inzetbaarheid van 50 - 60%, exclusief test vliegtuigen, als het minimum aantal voor een effectieve vloot. Heden wordt bij de KLu uitgegaan van een toekomstige F-35A vloot van 36 tot 57 toestellen.
Waarschijnlijker is een vloot van uiteindelijk ca. 25 LightningII's, waarvan er maar 8 inzetbaar zijn uitgaande van de huidige inzetbaarheids %!
Dat zou een realistisch getal zijn.
2 voor QRA en 6 voor uitzending.
Ook hier: conventionele oorlogsvoering komt niet meer in het Defensie woordenboek voor.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 15/02/2012 | 18:58 uur
Dat zou een realistisch getal zijn.
2 voor QRA en 6 voor uitzending.
Ook hier: conventionele oorlogsvoering komt niet meer in het Defensie woordenboek voor.
Aaangevuld met U(C)AV's (naast de 4 toestellen die men wil aanschaffen)?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 15/02/2012 | 18:58 uur
Dat zou een realistisch getal zijn.
2 voor QRA en 6 voor uitzending.
Ook hier: conventionele oorlogsvoering komt niet meer in het Defensie woordenboek voor.
Dan kan er niet meer getraind worden en is het jachtvliegseizoen binnenkort beeindigd, omdat men zich niet meer operationeel kan kwalificeren.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 15/02/2012 | 18:58 uur
Dat zou een realistisch getal zijn.
2 voor QRA en 6 voor uitzending.
Ook hier: conventionele oorlogsvoering komt niet meer in het Defensie woordenboek voor.
Als dit waarheid wordt, .... zucht ...... wat voor luchtmacht heb je dan nog, je steunt dan totaal op andere (NAVO) landen en niet meer op eigen kunnen. Met dit aantal toestellen kun je geen lange uitzendingen meer doen, lijkt mij.
Van mijn Zweedse bron 8):
CitaatThe Francophone supported effort to discredit the Swiss procurement process was however refuted yesterday by Swiss government in a press release (available in German here) which state that the Gripen still is the optimal choice for Switzerland. A position quite easily understandable as the next generation Gripen offers an avionics suit comparable to Rafale in a much cheaper package and that it runs on an engine similar to that of the F/A-18s operated by the Swiss airforce.
Dus niet alleen de Belgen hebben last van een bepaalde minderheid met een ongezonde fixatie op L'Hexagone blijkbaar.
CitaatBackground
Armasuisse has been evaluating the three aircrafts between 2008 and 2011 to identify the best fighter aircraft from a Swiss perspective. The leaked papers consist of the 2008 versions of Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen C/D and an alleged report from 2009 on future specifications. The fact that no Rafale supporter has leaked the 2010 and 2011 updates does however make the value of these reports rather questionable. It is however becoming a rather popular story in Francophone newspapers.
In both these reports Rafale was considered the most capable aircraft while Gripen was the most cost efficient. The 2009 report does however also show that there is far quicker progress is being made in updating the Gripen Demo and Eurofighter than in the Rafale. Which is understandable as the avionics package of Eurofighter has been severely delayed and Gripen Demo wasn't built until 2008 while Rafale could present a rather mature product.
Based on the facts available it is unsurprising that the incentive to leak reports from 2010 and 2011 has diminished as Gripen and the Eurofighter has matured as platforms. Throughout the testing the Swiss has been heavily penalizing capabilities promised but not yet fully flight tested (article in Swedish, use Google translate *Zie onderaan*). This mean that Rafale has been scoring great points while features such as the Superior Selex Raven AESA radar (used on both Eurofighter and Gripen), the Eurofighter LITENING pod and Gripen Skyward G IRST sensor has been penalized until the 2010/2011 testings.
Het aangehaalde artikel in het Zweeds: http://di.se/Default.aspx?pid=259185__ArticlePageProvider&epslanguage=sv&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationweek.com%2Faw%2Fblogs%2Fdefense%2Findex.jsp%3FplckController%3DBlog%26plckBlogPage%3DBlogViewPost%26newspaperUserId%3D27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7%26plckPhttp://di.se/Artiklar/2012/2/14/259185/Saab-Vara-framgangar-irriterar-konkurrenterna/cript%3DblogScript%26plckElementId%3DblogDest
Een onpartijdige bron? Misschien niet maar ik heb geen redenen om hier aan te twijfelen. Mensen als Poleme geloof ik ook op hun woord wat dit onderwerp betreft :angel:.
Citaat van: dudge op 15/02/2012 | 19:58 uur
[Dergelijke getallen doen al langer de rondte, het zou mij dus allemaal niet verbazen.
Het zou mij eerlijk wel verbazen, het is een ramkoers met het volledige bestaansrecht van de Klu. Als er naast twee mini snq van elk 12 F35A geen additionele capaciteit zou komen zoals een behoorlijk aantal U(C)AV's en misschien CAS toestellen dan is bij een (eventuele) bezuinigingsronde na ivoering van de JSF het simpelweg exit Klu of in ieder geval het jachtvliegtuigen bestand.
Maar ja.. als niemand daar mee zit en denkt na mij de zondvloed. dan vragen we er blijkbaar zelf om. :sick:
Nieuw Zeeland aan de Maas en paria van de NAVO.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/02/2012 | 20:10 uur
Het zou mij eerlijk wel verbazen, het is een ramkoers met het volledige bestaansrecht van de Klu. Als er naast twee mini snq van elk 12 F35A geen additionele capaciteit zou komen zoals een behoorlijk aantal U(C)AV's en misschien CAS toestellen dan is bij een (eventuele) bezuinigingsronde na ivoering van de JSF het simpelweg exit Klu of in ieder geval het jachtvliegtuigen bestand.
Maar ja.. als niemand daar mee zit en denkt na mij de zondvloed. dan vragen we er blijkbaar zelf om. :sick:
Nieuw Zeeland aan de Maas en paria van de NAVO.
+1
China Heads Out To Sea
Singapore Air Show » February 15, 2012
by David Donald
February 15, 2012, 2:15 AM
Since the late 1980s China has aggressively pursued a policy of modernizing its defense industries, with the aim of rivaling those of the West and Russia. Now the results of that policy are reaching the front line, allowing China's forces to transition from a Cold War inventory that was dominated by huge quantities of unsophisticated equipment to a leaner force equipped with systems that are smarter and more competitive with those fielded by the West.
In recent times the air force has been revived by the fielding of the Chengdu J-10, a genuine fourth-generation multi-role type, as well as the purchase from Russia and unlicensed copying of advanced "Flanker" versions. A stealthy fifth-generation prototype, the Chengdu J-20, has appeared. Chinese weaponry has undergone a change, too, so that GPS- and laser-guided munitions are in the inventory, along with active radar air-to-air missiles and long-range anti-ship weapons. Unmanned aerial vehicles have not been ignored either, and a wealth of unmanned designs have appeared
For the West, however, perhaps the most worrying developments concern China's maritime ambitions, and the impending delivery of the first aircraft carrier to the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
Chinese Aircraft Carrier
In April 1988 the Hong Kong-based Chong Lot Travel Agency purchased the nearly complete "Kuznetsov"-class carrier Varyag ostensibly for employment as a floating casino and amusement park. Lacking a rudder or engine, the vessel was to be towed to China from the Black Sea. Its voyage–beset initially by Turkish refusal to allow it through the Bosphorus, and then by breaking loose in a gale–eventually took nearly two years before it arrived at Dalian shipyard on March 3, 2002.
In 2005 the vessel was moved into a drydock and refurbishment began. It became obvious that it was now destined for the military. Work continued apace, and by the end of 2009 the vessel had a new mast with advanced sensors. That year a dummy deck, complete with island, was built at the Wuhan Naval Research Institute at Huangjia Lake.
The first official acknowledgement of the vessel came on June 8 last year, with the notice that that the ship was to be used for training and to provide a model for future carrier construction. This was further confirmed in late July, shortly before the carrier slipped its moorings in Dalian for its first sea trials.
Reportedly named Shi Lang, the carrier set sail for a four-day trial on August 10. A second set of trials was undertaken from November 29, during which the ship was photographed by a commercial U.S. satellite while at sea. A third trial began on December 20. While it appears that the carrier has some way to go before trials with aircraft commence, the PLAN is expected to take delivery some time this year.
Carrier Fighter
In 2006 it was reported in Russia that China had ordered 50 Sukhoi Su-33 fighters to equip its forthcoming carrier fleet. By 2009, however, the deal was off. China had apparently acquired the T-10K-3 prototype for the Su-33 from the Ukraine in 2001, and was reverse-engineering the aircraft in the same way that it began building unlicensed copies of the Su-27 to produce the J-11B land-based fighter.
This work was entrusted to Shenyang, which incorporated Chinese avionics and armament into the J-11B. These were also fitted in the carrier-capable Su-33 copy, which was designated J-15 and named Flying Shark. This aircraft, initially flying on the power of Russian AL-31F engines, made its first flight on Aug. 31, 2009, and by the following May was undertaking trials on dummy deck installations.
Since then several J-15s have appeared, including those fitted with the intended powerplant, the Shenyang Liming WS-10H. This is a version of the indigenous powerplant treated for prolonged maritime operations.
The aircraft carrier is reportedly designed to carry an air group of 26 fixed-wing aircraft and 24 helicopters. It is likely that the latter will include the Kamov Ka-31 to provide airborne early warning capability, the first of which was reportedly delivered from Russia in late 2010.
Fighter Developments
Since its dramatic appearance at the end of 2010 the Chengdu J-20 stealthy fighter has continued flight-testing. It is thought that two have been built, with some reports suggesting that a third will fly this year with some operational systems and the intended WS-15 engines installed. Various analyses of the J-20 have highlighted China's considerable advances in stealth technology, putting the aircraft nearly on a par with the F-22.
In the meantime, Chengdu is on the verge of putting the J-10B into production, if it has not done so already. This development features a stealthy serpentine intake and an active array radar with a reported 1,152 transmit/receive modules. Other reported fighter programs include a "JH-XX" development of the Xian JH-7 attacker with reduced radar cross section and, more tantalizingly, a JSF-like fifth-generation fighter that is smaller than the J-20. There are also rumors of a vertical landing fighter, possibly dubbed J-18, that may be the same aircraft.
Other Developments
China's progress in unmanned air vehicles has been impressive. Among the types that have recently been unveiled is the Chengdu Pterodactyl I, a Predator-like MALE UAV with precision munitions capability, the Soaring Dragon box-wing HALE and several smaller types, including a scale model of a Neuron-like unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), reportedly from Shenyang.
In the helicopter field Changhe has been developing the Z-10, a dedicated attack helicopter in the mold of the Eurocopter Tiger. The program has been delayed through powerplant issues, but it is thought that at least 12 have been delivered to a PLA test unit. Meanwhile, Harbin flew a prototype of its Z-19 light scout/attack helicopter in May 2010. Clearly based on the H-425 (itself a development of the Eurocopter Dauphin that Harbin builds under license), the Z-19 has a new tandem-seat forward fuselage grafted on, with weapon pylons added on the side.
The Avicopter AC313, a development of the Aérospatiale Super Frelon, was recently certified, having made its first flight on Mar. 18, 2010. The 1960s design has been thoroughly overhauled, with three Pratt & Whitney PT6B engines, modern systems, and composite/titanium rotors.
Late last year photos appeared showing what appeared to be a new maritime patrol version of the Y-8, possibly designated Y-8Q, or Y-8GX-6. The Y-8 has also been seen with a rotodome installation for the airborne early warning role. It is unclear as to whether the aircraft is a radar testbed, or an intended operational type for the PLAN air force. Other Y-8 derivatives include EW and Elint versions.
Possibly the next major Chinese program to emerge from the shadows will be the Y-20, a four-engine transport that falls somewhere in size between the Il-76 and C-17, and drawing inspiration from both. Developed by Xian and Shaanxi, the Y-20 program has been assisted by Antonov. Reports from China suggest that the prototype airframe is complete and should be rolled out some time this year.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2012-02-15/china-heads-out-sea
Decision on combat jet purchase may come soon: Brazil
Defense Minister Celso Amorim said Wednesday that Brazil may make a decision on awarding a multi-billion-dollar contract for 36 fighter jets in the first half of this year.
The Rafale, made by French firm Dassault, is competing against US aviation giant Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet and Swedish manufacturer Saab's Gripen jet for the contract valued at between $4 and $7 billion.
"The decision may be made in the first half of this year," Amorim told reporters after a seminar on defense policy.
Last year, Brasilia delayed a decision on the purchase following a major budget cut.
"I think the fighter jets are needed, Brazil needs them for its defense," the minister said. "The president (Dilma Rousseff) is fully aware of this. Now the exact time requires a conjunction of factors... It is up to the president to decide."
A Brazilian government source told AFP that a decision was unlikely before the outcome of the French presidential elections in May.
The source also recalled that Rousseff was due to travel to the United States April 9-11 for talks with President Barack Obama.
Amorim said his recent trip to India, a country which last month selected the Rafale over a rival from the Eurofighter consortium, should not be seen as confirmation that Brasilia was leaning toward the French fighter jet.
"It is very important that Brazil exchanges information, but it does mean that the decision will be the same" as that taken by India, he noted.
New Delhi last month selected the Rafale over the rival Eurofighter, giving Dassault the right to enter exclusive negotiations with India for 126 fighter jets estimated to be worth $12 billion (nine billion euros) after it lodged a lower bid than its European rival.
In December, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said during a visit to Brazil he was confident of selling Rafale fighter jets to the South American nation because the aircraft's technology cannot be matched.
The multi-role jet was designed to have the ability to take on air-to-air combat, reconnaissance flights and nuclear bombing missions.
It has special technology and uses composite materials to give it a very small radar profile and a combat awareness system allowing it to engage multiple targets at up to 200 kilometers (120 miles) away.
The Rafale was used in the recent war in Libya, but the fighter has repeatedly lost out in tenders in countries including Singapore, South Korea, and Morocco.
© 2011 AFP
Swiss stick with Swedish jets to replace fleet
Published: 14 Feb 2012 16:53 GMT+1
The Swiss government is standing by its choice of the Gripen jet to replace its ageing fighter fleet, the defence ministry said on Tuesday, after reported military fears that the aircraft was not up to
the job.
Defence Minister Ueli Maurer reaffirmed his preference for the Swedish-made Gripen which he said at a conference in Bern was the best value for money.
"The plane meets technical demands, even if it isn't the most expensive aircraft on the market," said Maurer.
The Federal Council announced in November its decision to purchase 22 Gripen for an estimated 3.1 billion francs ($3.4 billion), reportedly the cheapest of three offers.
French planemaker Dassault's Rafale and the Eurofighter, produced by the EADS consortium, were the other bidders.
"The Gripen provides the best cost-performance," said Maurer, who came under pressure after excerpts of a critical Swiss air force report appeared in the press at the weekend.
The 2009 assessment, published in Le Matin Dimanche newspaper, said tests carried out the previous year had shown the Gripen's effectiveness "remains inadequate to achieve air supremacy in the face of future threats beyond 2015."
Maurer was on Tuesday backed up by Swiss air force commander, Lieutenant General Markus Gygax, who told the conference that Saab were offering a modernised model, with improved performance.
The decision to select the Gripen is to be sent to lawmakers for final approval later this year.
Dassault has reportedly made a counter-offer undercutting the current deal, prompting Saab to review its price.
Maurer said the government had asked the French company to submit "a concrete offer" which Bern would then assess.
http://www.thelocal.ch/national/20120214_2569.html
Lockheed Martin announces F-16V development
Lockheed Martin has announced a new variant of the F-16 fighter, which will include an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, new mission computer and other cockpit improvements.
The F-16V configuration will be available as an upgrade for most F-16s as well as new production jets, said George Standridge, vice-president of business development at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. The "V" in the aircraft's name stands for "Viper", the nickname given to the type by US Air Force pilots.
During.....
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-lockheed-martin-announces-f-16v-development-368323/
Citaat van: dudge op 15/02/2012 | 21:46 uur
Ja, helaas hebben ook wij niet de luxe dat we de expliotatiekosten kunnen negeren.
Ik ben heel benieuwd wat Brazillie voor keuze gaat maken. Zeker gezien wat er dan nog in het verschiet zit. Zowel de Rafale als de Gripen kunnen de order goed gebruiken. Ik vermoed dat als het een Gripen wordt, deze zijn weg ook zal vinden naar andere Zuid-Amerikaanse landen.
Als het de Gripen wordt dan zullen wie die zeker meer tegen komen in Z Amerika, ook meer geavanceerde types zullen nodig zijn als tegenwicht tegen o.a. Venezulaanse inspiraties (SU30 en toekomstige SU35).
Belangrijk is het voor de Viking om meer continuïteit te verkrijgen, gaat de Brazilaanse order hun neus voorbij, dan vrees ik geen lang leven voor de NG (met eventueel 100 stuks voor de Zweedse luchtmacht en 22 voor die van Zwitserland hou je geen productielijn open en wordt het ontwikkelen van modificaties een hele kostbare geschiedenis)
Wellicht heeft de Gripen NG baat bij landen met kleine(re) luchtmachten met minder kapitaalkrachtige economiën of landen die economisch krachtig genoeg zijn maar de wereld vanaf een roze wolk zien.
Time will tell.... al kan het zomaar opeens heel snel gaan, kijk naar de vooruitzichten van de Rafale een paar maanden geleden en kijk hoe deze er nu voor staat.
Gezien de recente ontwikkelingen, hierbij ook mee geteld, de geintensiveerde konatcten tussen Brazilë en India met als middelpunt de Rafale verwacht ik een dubbelslag voor de Fransen.
Citaat van: Lex op 15/02/2012 | 21:29 uur
Lockheed Martin announces F-16V development
Lockheed Martin has announced a new variant of the F-16 fighter, which will include an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, new mission computer and other cockpit improvements.
The F-16V configuration will be available as an upgrade for most F-16s as well as new production jets, said George Standridge, vice-president of business development at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. The "V" in the aircraft's name stands for "Viper", the nickname given to the type by US Air Force pilots.
During.....
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-lockheed-martin-announces-f-16v-development-368323/
Minder F-35, maar de bestaande F-16 van de USAF worden geupgrade of wordt deze versie de voorgestelde upgrade voor de USAF ??
Lockheed ziet veel markt tussentijds verdwijnen door de F18 aankopen en de doorontwikkeling naar de F15SE, beide door concurrent Boeing. En met dat Fiasco-35 kan ik mij voorstellen dat ze zo wat cashflow proberen binnen te halen. Blijkbaar zien ze de bodem van hun eigen budget in zicht komen.
Swiss minister stands by Gripen selection
Swiss defence minister Ueli Maurer has reaffirmed the nation's selection of the Saab Gripen E/F as the "optimal solution" to replace its air force fleet of Northrop F-5s.
Maurer called a press conference on 14 February to counter Swiss media reports questioning the 30 November 2011 selection of the Gripen, after the emergence of leaked evaluation documents which questioned the type's ability to tackle future aerial threats.
Confirming the next-generation version of the Gripen had met the established selection criteria - along with larger and more expensive rivals the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon - Maurer said the financial aspects of the respective bids had been of "crucial importance". Acquiring the single-engined Gripen for the expected 22-aircraft deal was "financially viable in the long term", he said, adding that the leaked report was an obsolete document from 2008.
"Saab and Sweden are now in negotiations with Switzerland, optimising the complete package and preparing for the acquisition of Gripen E/F," the manufacturer said. "Saab is confident that the Gripen package gives Switzerland what it needs in all areas, particularly in terms of a fighter that delivers the best price-to-performance ratio with a long-term and agreed development path."
According to a schedule detailed late last year, the Swiss Federal Council should receive a final outline from Saab later this month.
Noting that earlier versions of the Gripen are in service with five air forces, Saab said the type "is capable of performing an extensive range of air-to-air, air-to-surface and reconnaissance missions employing the most modern range of weapons".
Its developmental E/F model features an active electronically scanned array radar and will also be able to carry MBDA's Meteor beyond visual-range air-to-air missile.
Local reports suggest Dassault could table an improved Rafale offer in a bid to derail negotiations with Saab, although a formal proposal has yet to be made.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/swiss-minister-stands-by-gripen-selection-368302/
Citaat van: Harald op 15/02/2012 | 22:18 uur
Minder F-35, maar de bestaande F-16 van de USAF worden geupgrade of wordt deze versie de voorgestelde upgrade voor de USAF ??
Geen idee. Ik weet alleen dat "de beste" USAF F16's voor een update in aanmerking komen met veel kenmerken van de block 60 (en daar lijkt de "V" verdacht veel op als ik het zo lees.
Daarnaast verwacht ik niet dat deze 350 opgewardeerde F16's ooit vervangen zullen worden door de F35 want tegen de vervangingstijd vliegen er ook (als het allemaal doorgaat) twee 6e generatie concepten (Boeing en LM) zo tussen 2025 en 2035.
DND has no Plan B for F-35 delays; drones not an option for fewer fighters
Murray Brewster, Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:12 PM
OTTAWA - Senior defence officials concede there is currently no Plan B — or back-up proposal — to deal with delays in the F-35 jetfighter program, and insist one is not necessary because of recent upgrades to the CF-18 fleet.
But there were suggestions Wednesday the Harper government might be casting around for an alternative as Julian Fantino, the associate minister of defence, told opposition parties to "stay tuned" for a response to the Pentagon's statement that the cost of the radar-evading plane would rise.
The Conservatives have been hammered for months in the House of Commons over delays and cost overruns in the multinational project. Other allies, such as Australia, have placed orders for Super Hornets — the newer, beefed up version of the CF-18 — to hedge against F-35 delays.
It's not necessary for Canada to go down that road, said a high-level defence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"We have no back-up plan. We have a reserve and flexibility in the life extensions we've done structurally to our F-18s and in weapons systems," said the source, referring to the $1.8-billion modernization that's took place over the last decade.
The upgrades mean the current fighter-bombers can "easily" stay in the air to 2020 and beyond.
The Royal Canadian Air Force isn't expected to take delivery of its first F-35 from U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin until 2016, with the bulk of the planned 65 planes arriving around 2020.
"The (CF-18) will still be effective, but you'll have slightly lower numbers as we get to maximum fatigue life on air frames," said the source in a recent background interview.
Whether the military can do with fewer F-35s has been a matter of intense debate for months. Internal air force documents, released last fall, showed planners consider 65 to be the "minimum acceptable fleet" and going below presents risks and could even jeopardize the ability to carry out a full-range of missions.
Neither Fantino, nor Defence Minister Peter MacKay, would say whether a smaller order is in offing because of increased costs.
But it's clear the Conservatives are feeling heat on the issue with caucus members expressing private dismay at how the U.S. program seems to have spiralled out of control and fallen off schedule with a spectacular stream of development glitches.
"It's very simple," said interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae, who fired repeated questions at Fantino, hoping to knock him off his speaking notes.
"We've been raising this as party for 18 months, trying to get a clear answer. We don't need the robo-call answer. We need a real answer to these questions. How many planes? At what price? And when are they going to be delivered?"
New Democrat MP Matthew Kellway was even more blunt: "Will the minister give Canadians a straight answer? Are they ordering the same number of planes? Yes or no?"
It's been suggested in political circles that unmanned aircraft might be able to make up the difference, but those in uniform dismiss the idea.
"We don't have this notion of a Plan B. Currently Canada doesn't see the need for it (because) we are committed to the F-35 program," Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps, head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.
"I think there's a lot of confusion around what fighters can do. The foremost job of any fighter aircraft ... is air control, which is fundamental to any sovereign action; maintaining control of your own air space.
"Right now, the only tool that's fully effective right across the spectrum of air control is a fighter — a manned fighter."
The air force has been conducting a study since last spring on what the right balance might be between manned and unmanned aircraft.
"UAVs are good at doing the dull, dirty and dangerous stuff," Deschamps said. "UAVs are optimized for that mission."
Unmanned aircraft, which Canada plans to purchase some time down the road, would be armed, but only for air-to-ground attacks and the technology allowing for air-to-air interception does not exist, said the air chief.
"They can't fulfil any of the fighter functions right now," said Deschamps.
Canada is expected to chair a meeting in Washington some time in the next few weeks among F-35 partner nations to talk about the latest developments in the program. A wider, more detailed conference is planned for Australia next month.
© The Canadian Press, 2012
Read it on Global News: Global News | DND has no Plan B for F-35 delays; drones not an option for fewer fighters
The Eagle Falls Silent
Singapore Air Show » February 16, 2012
by Chris Pocock
February 15, 2012, 1:45 PM
The pair of Singaporean F-15SG fighters on static display here are the most advanced Strike Eagles ever built–but not for much longer because the huge order from Saudi Arabia that was confirmed recently allows Boeing to fit a fly-by-wire system. Boeing confirmed to AIN here in Singapore this week that the company would be offering its full Silent Eagle package of stealth modifications to Korea for that country's 60-plane KFX-3 requirement.
It's been quite a journey for the F-15 since December 2005, when Singapore chose the veteran design over the "fourth-generation" Dassault Rafale. At the time, that decision seemed to be motivated by political as much as technical considerations. But as Singapore defense minister Teo Chee Hean noted when the first F-15SGs arrived in Singapore in April 2010, "The F-15 is a combat-proven aircraft renowned for its weapon load, speed, range and agility...with state-of-the-art sensors, avionics and weapons." The last of 24 F-15SGs will be delivered this year.
Korea also preferred the Strike Eagle to the Rafale and has already bought 61 F-15Ks in two batches. The two Asian countries have sustained F-15 production long after the U.S. Air Force stopped buying F-15Es. The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) F-15SGs differ from the Korean F-15Ks in having an AESA radar–the Raytheon APG-63(V)3.
Moreover, the navigation and targeting suite provided by Lockheed Martin is state-of-the-art, comprising a Lantirn navigation pod with terrain-following radar and forward-looking infrared, a Sniper XR EO/laser targeting pod and the AAS-43 Tiger Eyes infrared search-and-track system. The U.S. package also included the joint helmet mounted cueing system (JHMCS) and a full suite of weapons, including Raytheon AGM-154 joint standoff weapons (JSOWs) and AIM-9X air-air missiles.
The F-15SGs also have some Israeli content: an advanced integrated electronic warfare system provided by Elisra and–though not acknowledged by the company–an Elbit Systems mission computer. This allows Singapore to overcome U.S. restrictions on the reprograming of these sensitive equipments.
The 84 new and 70 upgraded Saudi Strike Eagles confirmed last December in a record sale worth $29.5 billion will be designated F-15SA. They will have the same Raytheon AESA radar, General Electric F110 engines and some of the same weapons as the Singapore aircraft.
The change to fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) will not be difficult to integrate, and brings the benefits of increased agility and reduced weight, Boeing vice president Asia Pacific Joe Song told AIN. The F-15SA will have a new digital electronic warfare system (DEWS) provided by BAE Systems. This consolidates the six black boxes of the old analog system on the F-15E/K into one, thus saving more weight. It also provides much greater capability, reliability and affordability. The FBW FCS and the DEWS will enter flight test at the end of this year, Song said. Other new features of the F-15SA will be two additional wing hardpoints for weapons, and dual-seat integration of the JMHCS.
Turning to what may be the ultimate F-15–the Silent Eagle–Boeing first unveiled the set of modifications that can reduce the aircraft's radar cross section (RCS) in March 2009. But unless the F-15SE has already been quietly marketed to Singapore, the first serious offer will be to Korea. The mods comprise a conformal weapons bay (CWB) created by modifying the aircraft's existing conformal fuel tanks; RCS-reducing airframe coatings; and vertical tails that are canted 15 deg outward.
Song told AIN that the entire F-15SE package will be offered to Korea for KFX-3. The CWBs have already been test-flown, and the V-tail configuration will be in the wind tunnel soon. The U.S. government has yet to sanction the offer of RCS coatings, but since the U.S. will also be offering the Lockheed Martin F-35 to Korea, Boeing is expecting approval. The F-15SE offer will also include large, 11- by 19-inch displays in each cockpit.
Will Korea follow Japan and go for the F-35? Song believes that Boeing is in a strong position. "We're the incumbents. The Koreans love their F-15Ks, and the Silent Eagle offers 85-percent commonality," he claimed. The F-35 may not be available in time, he added, and the price is uncertain amid the current slowing of the production ramp-up. Boeing is currently negotiating a performance-based logistics contract with Korea for the F-15Ks. The company also gained kudos by building in-country a software upgrade facility that which the Koreans also use for their F-16s. Responses to the RFP for the KFX-3 are due in June, with a decision scheduled for October. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a third contender.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2012-02-15/eagle-falls-silent
F-15SE
Info van Boeing over ontwikkelingen van F-15SE , PDF van Airshow Singapore 2012
http://www.boeing.com/singapore2012/pdf/0214_f15.pdf
Cut-away van F-15SE
http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=44298
http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/aircraft/military/boeing-f-15/cutaway/
Deze cut-away is interactief, sleep het blauwe balkje van links naar rechts !!
F-15SE en de extra's :
- internal weapons bays, each holding either two missiles or a single bomb.
- equipped with the BAE digital electronic warfare suite (DEWS), described as being derived from technologies carried by the F-35 and F-22
- added a Raytheon AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) to the weapons package
- large-area, touchscreen displays, 11'' x 19'' (voor en achter)
- a second-generation joint helmet-mounted cueing system featuring integrated night-vision.
- digital fly-by-wire
- integration of an infrared search and track (IRST) sensor inside the fuselage.
- APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array radar
- 2 × Pratt & Whitney F100-229 afterburning turbofans, 29,000 lbf (129 kN) each
- Link-16 data link
- wing stations 1 & 9 will now carry what looks like weapons up to 1000lbs or so, which means a pair of AIM-120s or AIM-9Xs
Toekomst ? :
- thrust vectoring
- 2x engine F110-GE-132, which can produce up to 32,500 pounds of thrust (144 kN) each (supercruise ?)
Italië verkoopt gevechtsvliegtuigen aan Israël
donderdag 16 februari 2012, 17u51
Israël zal dertig militaire trainingsvliegtuigen ter waarde van 769 miljoen euro aankopen in Italië. Italië zal op zijn beurt voor hetzelfde bedrag wapentuig kopen van Israël. Dat heeft de Udi Shani directeur-generaal van Israelisch ministerie van defensie laten weten.
Israël zal dertig militaire trainingsvliegtuigen ter waarde van 769 miljoen euro aankopen in Italië. Italië zal op zijn beurt voor hetzelfde bedrag wapentuig kopen van Israël. Dat heeft de Udi Shani directeur-generaal van Israelisch ministerie van defensie laten weten.
Ondanks de moeilijke begrotingsomstandigheden zal de deal doorgaan maar de regering en het parlement in Jeruzalem moeten nog instemmen met de koop.
Ook de Zuid-Koreaanse luchtvaartindustrie wou de Israëlische opdracht binnenhalen maar dat kon ondanks de belofte om aan 1,2 miljard miljard euro militair materiaal aan te kopen, niet baten.
Israël wil de verouderde Amerikaanse Skyhawks vliegtuigen vervangen door de nieuwe Italiaanse M-346 gevechtsvliegtuigen. Ze worden gemaakt in het bedrijf Alenia Aermacchi en zijn ontworpen voor lange vluchten. Rond 2014 worden ze in Israël geleverd.
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20120216_206
Mooie dingen zijn dan.
Eventueel secundair nog als gevechts/CAS toestel te gebruiken. (Er kan bijvoorbeeld een Vixen 500E in en voor hun vast ook wel zo'n ding van Elta.)
Citaat van: IPA NG op 16/02/2012 | 22:12 uur
Mooie dingen zijn dan.
Eventueel secundair nog als gevechts/CAS toestel te gebruiken. (Er kan bijvoorbeeld een Vixen 500E in en voor hun vast ook wel zo'n ding van Elta.)
Ik ga ervanuit dat Israël er hun eigen spullen wel ingaan zetten, dat doen ze bij de F15 en F16 ook.
Ook de Polen willen/wilden dit toestel of de F-50 Golden Eagle die secundair de Su-22 moest vervangen als tweede lijns aanvalstoestel. Hoewel ze dit laatste criteria hebben laten vallen blijkbaar. Overigens is dat niets nieuws ook de SAAB 105 was bedoeld om ingezet te worden tegen de Sovjet divisies en de Britse Hawks zouden ook met Sidewinders uitgerust worden als de Koude Oorlog warm werd.
Qua kosten per vlieguur houden zulke toestellen het midden tussen echte fighters en turboprop COIN toestellen, ook qua capaciteiten denk ik want op zo'n toestel kun je zelfs BVR raketten hangen (L-159 ALCA met AMRAAM).
Dusss als we voor de SAAB gaan dan moeten we onze eigen piloten opleiden (of een deal met de Zweden sluiten) en is een partijtje M-346 tweezitters die ook geschikt zijn voor CAS een aantrekkelijke optie om het gat tussen de PC-7 en de JAS-39 te overbruggen. Daarbij komt dat jets beter zijn in bergachtig gebied dan turboprops voor zover ik dat goed heb begrepen.
France, Britain to build unmanned fighter jet
Clare Byrne Source: dpa, Berlin
Feb. 16--PARIS -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron are to unveil plans to develop an unmanned European fighter jet at a summit in Paris on Friday, Les Echos financial newspaper reported.
The paper on Thursday quoted unnamed sources as saying the two governments aimed to build a "prototype of an unmanned stealth aircraft by 2020."
"This is clearly bilateral cooperation for the post-Rafale and post-Eurofighter (era)," the paper quoted a source as saying.
The Rafale fighter jet is produced by France's Dassault Aviation.
Eurofighter -- a consortium of European aerospace and defence group EADS, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Alenia/Finmeccanica -- produces its chief rival, the Typhoon.
Dassault scored a key victory over Eurofighter in January, when India's government entered exclusive talks with Dassault on supplying 126 fighter jets.
The new aircraft planned by France and Britain would be built by Dassault and BAE Systems, according to Les Echos.
Friday's Franco-British summit between Sarkozy, Cameron and their defence and foreign ministers will deal mainly with defence issues.
In November 2010 Sarkozy and Cameron signed an agreement on far-reaching military and nuclear cooperation, aimed at cutting costs while enhancing both countries' individual and joint capabilities.
Copyright 2012 - dpa, Berlin
Het zal me benieuwen waar beide leiders mee komen, er wordt gesproken over een onbemande fighter en dat is mijn ogen net iets anders dan een UCAV.
Ik laat me (morgen) graag verrassen.
France, Britain to build air combat drones
February 16, 2012 - 17:45 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - France and Britain are to launch a joint project to build air combat drones during a visit by UK Prime Minister David Cameron to Paris, French newspaper Les Echos reported on Thursday, February 16, according to AFP.
Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy will announce the project during a summit meeting on Friday, the newspaper quoted several sources as saying.
"The project will take the form of a joint letter of intent that will be non-binding but will open the door to the first preliminary studies," the business paper reported.
"Tens of millions of euros" will be allocated to getting the project off the ground, it said, and the goal to is to have a prototype drone ready by 2020.
The project hopes to avoid the "fratricidal European battle" that has opposed the Rafale fighter jet produced by France's Dassault and the UK-backed Eurofighter in bidding for warplane contracts, it said.
Dassault's Rafale this month won the right to be the sole bidder in a major contract to supply warplanes to India, beating out the Eurofighter consortium and sparking consternation in Britain.
Les Echos said the drone project would be a joint programme between Rafale and Britain's BAE systems, noting that it excluded pan-European aerospace and defence corporation EADS, which "will not be appreciated in Berlin".
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/94086/
French-UK drone project to be unveiled Fri -sources
By Cyril Altmeyer
PARIS | Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:44am EST
Feb 16 (Reuters) - France and Britain will unveil plans on Friday for a joint project to develop a next-generation unmanned stealth aircraft, or drone, following a cooperation accord signed in 2010, according to sources with knowledge of the matter.
President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister David Cameron, who are set to meet on Friday at a bilateral summit in Paris, will announce a non-binding letter of intent, with the project to be headed by France's Dassault Aviation and British defence contractor BAE Systems.
The news, first reported in Les Echos daily, was confirmed to Reuters by five sources who did not wish to be named.
A prototype of the drone could appear by 2020, the newspaper said on Thursday, adding that it would be funded preliminarily with "a few dozen millions of euros".
Sarkozy's office was not immediately available for comment, and Dassault did not wish to comment.
"There is a UK-France summit tomorrow, and there will be talks about further cooperation on the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) project," said one of the sources close to the project. "There could be a concrete announcement."
BAE said it had anticipated that at the summit, originally scheduled for December 2011, the two countires would announce the "next steps and intentions" to lead to a UAV design and development programme and unmanned combat air system demonstrator programme.
In November 2010, Sarkozy and Cameron signed a defence and security cooperation treaty to increase coordination between the countries' armed forces and co-develop equipment.
BAE said in 2010 it was in talks with Dassault Aviation about working together on the development of an unmanned aircraft, also known as UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle), which are used for both reconnaissance and attack missions.
The programme expected to be announced on Friday will be based on these plans.
The two companies compete to sell conventional fighter jets.
European aerospace group EADS has been disgruntled by BAE and Dassault's drone plans, as it has spent years developing its own, Talarion, in the hope of winning orders from the project's instigators, France, Germany and Spain. . EADS did not wish to comment on Thursday.
In Britain, greater military collaboration with France is seen as a way of maintaining defence capability while slimming down the armed forces to save money.
France scored a major victory less than two weeks ago as Dassault's Rafale warplanes emerged as the preferred bidder in a $15 billion contest to supply India with 126 fighter jets.
BAE is Europe's biggest defence contractor, but its profit has fallen due to reduced military spending, especially in the United States and Britain.
France is also negotiating with Dassault to provide a more basic drone from 2014 while it waits for the next-generation project to bear fruit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/16/france-britain-drone-idUSL5E8DG2L820120216
Een paar berichten verder lijkt de drone geen fighter te worden maar een UCAV.
Misschien als ze SAAB laten meedoen dan blijft het ding nog enigszins betaalbaar.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 16/02/2012 | 23:15 uur
Misschien als ze SAAB laten meedoen dan blijft het ding nog enigszins betaalbaar.
Aanname.
Als er een vacature beschikbaar komt, dan tip ik je!
More Trouble for the F-35? – An Israeli Perspective
Would Israel have done better to postpone its F-35 acquisition?
Recent report on glitches in the F-35 raises different questions in Israel
11:16 GMT, February 16, 2012 In early December 2011, a US Department of Defense report about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was leaked to the media. The report, dubbed the "Quick Look Review" (QLR), was written by a committee that included some senior US defense establishment figures who were charged specifically with looking into the question of "concurrency," i.e., selling the airplane while the flight testing is still underway. The committee was set up in light of a less than glowing report about the flight tests submitted at the end of October.
Concurrent acquisitions have been part of virtually every large weapons acquisition project in the West in recent decades. The extended development and production timetables have always required the start of low rate initial production (LRIP) before the conclusion of all testing and sometimes even before the end of the final development. The assumption is that flaws that surface during testing can be fixed later in units manufactured in the early batches.
In the case of the F-35, this method has been stretched to unprecedented lengths. The plane's developers relied on the fact that the development methods, particularly regarding the computer simulations – based on the experience with development of the F-22 at Lockheed Martin – would allow them to reach a design mature enough to begin procurement even before flight tests began. Thus, the first batch was ordered in FY 2007, even though flight tests only started in 2008. By FY2011, 88 planes had already been ordered and the acquisitions for the next few years are planned at the rate of 30-40 additional planes every year.
Toward the middle of 2011 it became clear that the flight tests were not progressing at the anticipated rate and indicated that the design of the three F-35 models was not as mature as had been expected. The bottom line of the QLR report was that while there is no reason to stop concurrent acquisition altogether, there are, in the language of the report, several problems with "major consequences" regarding continued production.
So far, more than 700 change requests (CRs) have been submitted. The committee noted that it takes 24 months on average from the time a CR is submitted until the change is actually introduced in the planes on the production line. As for the planes made up until then – they will have to be modified at a later date, with an additional cost to the plane. Among the problems of major consequence are problems with the pilot's helmet mounted display system (HMDS).[1] There are severe safety problems with the fuel dump subsystem, and problems with the reliability of the integrated power package (IPP).[2] The report's authors also indicated problems whose full extent would only become apparent during later testing.
The flight test program is only in its initial stages. So far only 19 percent of the planned testing is complete, and all tests were within the more "conservative areas" of the flight envelope. Likewise, no testing has yet been undertaken to certify weapon systems. The QLR report does not deal with the cost of the plane, but recently published data indicates that the cost of planes from LRIP 5 (whose production has recently begun) will reach some $160 million. This price does not include the cost of the modifications and repairs that have already become evident or those that will appear during later testing.[3] According to the current schedule (which may yet change), only the planes going into production after 2018 will have full operational capabilities. These planes will only be supplied sometime after 2019-20.
In August 2010, the Israeli Ministry of Defense announced its intention to acquire 20 F-35 planes (the security cabinet's approval was granted in October 2010). During the negotiations over the issue, there was talk of delivering the planes starting in 2014 at the earliest. As of now, the order is for 19 planes to be delivered starting in 2016 at the earliest. The latest report published has direct implications for the Israeli Air Force's ability to take delivery and integrate the planes. Some estimate that the delivery date will be postponed, perhaps even until 2018.
The F-35 is without a doubt the most advanced combat aircraft in terms of its stealth, ability to pinpoint and identify targets, and help the pilot's situational awareness. Indeed, one could accept the proponents' claim that the transition to the fifth generation fighter is a huge technological leap. However, the most recent report shows that even if the first planes are supplied in 2018, these will come from one of the LRIPs before the end of the flight tests. In exchange for a $140-160 million price tag per plane, the Israel Air Force will take delivery of planes that are not yet certified to carry any sort of weapon systems, are not certified for the entire flight envelope, and will almost certainly have to be upgraded to repair flaws that will only emerge during later flight tests.
The defense establishment is thoroughly convinced that the planes will be supplied by the end of 2016. Air force pilots will start training on them in the United States even earlier than that. Furthermore, sources in the defense establishment say that changes and improvements in fighter jets, even new ones, are a routine matter. In the past too, Israel acquired planes that underwent such changes as soon as they landed here. As for the flaws noted in the QLR, the defense establishment is aware of them and is also aware of the technological solutions to fix them – solutions that will be incorporated into the planes intended to be delivered here.
Were Israel to buy the fighter jets with Israeli taxpayer money, it is certainly a question whether the acquisition of the F-35 is a worthwhile deal at this stage. However, even under current circumstances, when the planes are bought with the special American defense aid funds, it is worth giving serious reconsideration to the questions: On which weapon systems does it make sense to use the defense aid money in the next few years? Is it not a good idea to postpone the purchase of the F-35 until the coming decade and in the meantime invest the money in different weapon systems?
At the same time, it should be asked: in what ways have the threats against Israel changed, and to what extent can the existing aircraft array confront them? Fifth generation planes would certainly improve capabilities, but does a possible postponement in acquisition seriously affect Israel's response to the new threats?
In addition, it is necessary to examine the F-35's special capabilities, some of which – though assuredly not all – are technologies one can install on combat aircraft already in the IAF ORBAT. While such upgrades will not turn the enhanced planes into fifth generation fighters, they will certainly improve their capabilities to confront the new threats.
http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/958/?SID=979cfc441af241d03ffd58dcacb34cfa
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/02/2012 | 07:56 uur
Is it not a good idea to postpone the purchase of the F-35 until the coming decade and in the meantime invest the money in different weapon systems?
At the same time, it should be asked: in what ways have the threats against Israel changed, and to what extent can the existing aircraft array confront them? Fifth generation planes would certainly improve capabilities, but does a possible postponement in acquisition seriously affect Israel's response to the new threats?
In addition, it is necessary to examine the F-35's special capabilities, some of which – though assuredly not all – are technologies one can install on combat aircraft which already exist to replace aircraft in the IAF ORBAT. While such upgrades will not turn the enhanced planes into fifth generation fighters, they will certainly improve their capabilities to confront the new threats.
Deze 3 vragen welke hierboven in de quote gesteld worden, zijn juist de 3 vragen welke je op dit moment ook door/in Nederland gesteld kunnen worden. (ik heb de laatste vraag iets gewijzigd)
Verander Israel door The Netherlands en IAF ORBAT door Dutch Air Force en zie daar.
The U.S. Air Force on Feb. 15 celebrated the rollout of the first re-winged A-10 Thunderbolt II
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah, Feb. 16, 2012 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] and the U.S. Air Force on Feb. 15 celebrated the rollout of the first re-winged A-10 Thunderbolt II in a ceremony at Hill Air Force Base. Boeing is under contract with the Air Force to deliver 233 wing sets through 2018.
"This enhanced wing assembly will give the A-10 new strength and a new foundation for its continued service into 2040," said Mark Bass, Maintenance, Modifications & Upgrades vice president and general manager for Boeing Defense, Space & Security. "Boeing remains a committed partner in ensuring the A-10 continues to be a ready, reliable and viable weapon system for the U.S. Air Force."
The A-10 wing replacement program is an example of Boeing's continued expansion into non-Boeing platform work. The wing sets are produced at the company's production facility in Macon, Ga., with partner Korean Aerospace Industries. They are delivered to the Air Force customer at the Ogden Air Logistics Center.
Boeing delivered the first A-10 wing set to the Air Force in March 2011. After mating to the aircraft and validation and verification of the wing, Air Force pilots flew the aircraft on its first flight in November.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 62,000 employees worldwide.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2134
Lockheed: F-35 Partners Won't Suffer Unduly from Production Slowdown
AIN Defense Perspective » February 17, 2012
by Chris Pocock
The acquisition cost of F-35s for the international partners is bound to be affected by the slowdown in U.S. production, Dave Scott, Lockheed Martin's director for international F-35 customer engagement, told AIN. "But we'll still be doing about 30 in each of the next few years for the U.S., and when you add orders that have already been confirmed by the partners plus Israel and Japan, it's not a bad annual rate," he continued.
Under F-35 procurement procedures, the partners pay the same unit recurring flyaway cost as the U.S. for the aircraft that they order in each annual or (eventually) multi-year buy. Smaller order quantities should mean higher unit prices, but countering this trend, Scott told AIN, is the fact that "as we refine the supply chain and the production processes, the price will continue to reduce."
Scott noted that six of the eight partners now have committed to or ordered aircraft. "They're all in it together, and have been for 10 years now," he said, referring to the system design and development phase in which all of them made contributions. These ranged from $2 billion from the UK, a Level 1 partner, to $1 billion from Italy and $800 million from the Dutch as Level 2 partners to $125 million to $175 million from the remainder, as Level 3 partners.
The British (three) and the Dutch (two) have already ordered aircraft, Scott noted. Australia (two) and Italy (four) are placing their first orders in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 6, and have already funded long-lead production items. Turkey is following in LRIP 7, and Norway (four) in LRIP 8. Canada and Denmark are the two partners who have yet to commit. The first deliveries to Israel and Japan will be from LRIP 8.
According to Scott, "some countries" are considering an increase in their F-35 orders, though he would not specify who they are. But the UK is certain to reduce its requirement for 132, and two days after AIN spoke with Scott, Italy announced that it is chopping 40 aircraft from its previously planned buy of 131. The Australian defense minister recently stated that his country's plans to order its next 14 F-35s are on hold.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-02-17/lockheed-f-35-partners-wont-suffer-unduly-production-slowdown
Brazil, UAE Might Follow India's Choice of Rafale
Debate Over Swiss Choice Continues
AIN Defense Perspective » February 17, 2012
by Chris Pocock
The French Rafale is reportedly well placed to triumph in the long-running fighter jet contest in Brazil, and also to secure the elusive order from the UAE, following the type's success in India. Speaking at the Singapore Airshow, Indian air force commander ACM N.A.K. Browne told AIN that his country would not accept a revised bid from the losing Eurofighter camp for the 126-aircraft MMRCA requirement. British politicians had earlier suggested this possibility, but it emerged that the Dassault Rafale was the clear winner on acquisition and life-cycle costs. Negotiations to conclude a firm contract will start on March 5, Browne said.
Dassault's prospects for securing an order from Brazil for at least 36 Rafales brightened when Reuters reported from São Paolo that President Dilma Rousseff favors the French warplane, especially after India's choice. Moreover, the Brazilians have requested access to India's selection procedures for the MMRCA, which will be granted, Browne confirmed.
French media outlet La Tribune reported that the long-awaited sale of 60 Rafales to the UAE might soon be concluded, despite last November's dramatic declaration by the Emiratis at the Dubai Air Show that the price was not right. La Tribune said that Dassault chief Charles Edelstenne returned to Abu Dhabi some days after the show to repair relations. There was a positive outcome, and now French President Nicolas Sarkozy is planning to visit the UAE at the end of March to seal the deal, La Tribune continued.
In Switzerland, Defense Minister Ueli Maurier called a press conference to counter the leak of the Swiss Air Force (SAF) technical evaluation for the new fighter aircraft. This showed the Rafale as the clear winner, the Eurofighter second and the Saab Gripen last. But the Swiss government chose the Gripen package worth $3.4 billion, including 22 jets, as the most cost-effective solution. The evaluation covered flight tests of the three aircraft in Switzerland in the second half of 2008, as well as the SAF's verdict on enhancements promised but not yet available on the three contenders.
Maurier reaffirmed the choice of the Gripen, insisting that all three contenders had met the technical requirement. The Swedish warplane was the most affordable replacement for Switzerland's F-5Es, given the pressures on the country's defense equipment budget, he said.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-02-17/brazil-uae-might-follow-indias-choice-rafale-debate-over-swiss-choice-continues
Ik heb het idee dat Boeing met de F15SE, FA18E Super Hornet Block2 en nu met de modernisering van de A-10 Thunderbolt II bezig is om de stoelpoten van Lockheed-Martin weg te zagen en dat de F35 steeds meer een project gaat worden van een kansloze missie.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 18/02/2012 | 09:43 uur
Ik heb het idee dat Boeing met de F15SE, FA18E Super Hornet Block2 en nu met de modernisering van de A-10 Thunderbolt II bezig is om de stoelpoten van Lockheed-Martin weg te zagen en dat de F35 steeds meer een project gaat worden van een kansloze missie.
Dat heet concurrentie.
Boeing heeft met de bovenstaande combi een prima troef in handen voor de aankomende jaren en werkt voorzichtig aan op de achtergrond, uit de wind van LM, aan een 6e generatie fighter.
Het lijkt er op dat het gehele Amerikaanse 5e generatie avontuur een kostbare interim oplossing wordt, zeker als rond 2030 beide 6e generatie concepten (Boeing en LM) meer dan een concept moeten zijn.
Plaats het aantal 5e generatie kisten ook in dit perspectief, een handvol F22 (hier win je een high tech oorlog echt niet mee) en een rap dalend aantal F35 versus een groot aantal 4e generatie kisten die operationeel moeten blijven tot 2030-2040.
Plaats een 6e generatie kist in deze tijdslijn en het zal duidelijk worden dat een voor de hand liggende keuze niet meer F35 zal zijn maar een kist die ook de huidige, in ontwikkeling zijnde, Russische en Aziatische dreigingen het hoofd kan bieden.
Als Klu zou ik gaan voor een oplossing die tot 2035-40 vrijwel alle dreigen het hoofd kan bieden tegen een acceptale prijs om vervolgens na periode aan te haken met de ontwikkelingen die dan aktueel zijn en van de plak te koop zijn.
Wat mij berteft: (68) F15 voor de Klu of de combinatie F15/A10 (48/24)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/02/2012 | 10:10 uur
Als Klu zou ik gaan voor een oplossing die tot 2035-40 vrijwel alle dreigen het hoofd kan bieden tegen een acceptale prijs om vervolgens na periode aan te haken met de ontwikkelingen die dan aktueel zijn en van de plank te koop zijn.
Wat mij berteft: (68) F15 voor de Klu of de combinatie F15/A10 (48/24)
Jurrien een probleem is dat de A10 niet meer wordt gemaakt, dus kun je mij dan uitleggen hoe je dat wilt gaan doen?
Misschien een optie om tweedehands toestellen over te nemen van de VS en deze voorzien van nieuwe motoren en vleugels?
Citaat van: Ace1 op 18/02/2012 | 10:21 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/02/2012 | 10:10 uur
Als Klu zou ik gaan voor een oplossing die tot 2035-40 vrijwel alle dreigen het hoofd kan bieden tegen een acceptale prijs om vervolgens na periode aan te haken met de ontwikkelingen die dan aktueel zijn en van de plank te koop zijn.
Wat mij berteft: (68) F15 voor de Klu of de combinatie F15/A10 (48/24)
Jurrien een probleem is dat de A10 niet meer wordt gemaakt, dus kun je mij dan uitleggen hoe je dat wilt gaan doen?
Misschien een optie om tweedehands toestellen over te nemen van de VS en deze voorzien van nieuwe motoren en vleugels?
Er gaan 5 á 6 volledige snq uit het inventaris van de USAF daarnaast staan er nog velen in de mottenballenvloot. Deze kisten voor een appel en een ei kopen, vervolgens (samen met de USAF) deze op de nieuwste standaard brengen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/02/2012 | 11:50 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 18/02/2012 | 10:21 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/02/2012 | 10:10 uur
Als Klu zou ik gaan voor een oplossing die tot 2035-40 vrijwel alle dreigen het hoofd kan bieden tegen een acceptale prijs om vervolgens na periode aan te haken met de ontwikkelingen die dan aktueel zijn en van de plank te koop zijn.
Wat mij berteft: (68) F15 voor de Klu of de combinatie F15/A10 (48/24)
Jurrien een probleem is dat de A10 niet meer wordt gemaakt, dus kun je mij dan uitleggen hoe je dat wilt gaan doen?
Misschien een optie om tweedehands toestellen over te nemen van de VS en deze voorzien van nieuwe motoren en vleugels?
Er gaan 5 á 6 volledige snq uit het inventaris van de USAF daarnaast staan er nog velen in de mottenballenvloot. Deze kisten voor een appel en een ei kopen, vervolgens (samen met de USAF) deze op de nieuwste standaard brengen.
Als we moesten kiezen tussen deze 2, dan zou ik voor de combi gaan.
Maar wel met de C-versie van de A-10, zodat het aansluit met de upgrades van de USAF.
Wat een groot voordeel is dat de USAF de A-10 wil houden tot in de jaren 2030-40, zij weten ook dat een CAS toestel onmisbaar is.
Citaat van: Harald op 19/02/2012 | 16:45 uur
Als we moesten kiezen tussen deze 2, dan zou ik voor de combi gaan.
Maar wel met de C-versie van de A-10, zodat het aansluit met de upgrades van de USAF.
Wat een groot voordeel is dat de USAF de A-10 wil houden tot in de jaren 2030-40, zij weten ook dat een CAS toestel onmisbaar is.
Mijn keuze zou ook de combi zijn.
Vanzelfsprekend de C uivoering. Als de VS niet met deze toestellen zou blijven opereren tot de jaren 30/40 dan zou ik het geen aantrekkelijk alternatief vinden, ook hier geldt de wet van de grote getallen vwb updates en onderhoud.
Ik zou geen probleem hebben met die combi, nee, ik zou die combi graag zien. Echter, hoe lang zal het duren voordat men het in het Parlement over relikwieen van de Koude Oorlog zal hebben die bestemd zijn om tanks te vernietigen? Dat ze zeer effectief in diverse conflicten, zoals Afghanistan, zijn gebruikt wordt dan vergeten en past niet in het beeld. Men zal het als een ouderwets en aggressief/offensief toestel zien ben ik bang.
Ik denk dat in dat geval een combi van 42 F15SE en 12-16 A10's realistischer zou zijn met het huidige budget en mogelijke nieuwe toekomstige kortingen op het beschikbaar gestelde budget.
Los van het feit of het een verstandig idee is om A-10's te kopen vraag ik me af hoeveel van die dingen je operationeel kan inzetten als je er 12 tot 16 hebt. Lijkt me dat als je ten alle tijde een inzet van een minimum van pak em beet 4 van die dingen wilt kunnen garanderen je er meer nodig hebt.
Citaat van: yelloow op 19/02/2012 | 18:27 uur
Los van het feit of het een verstandig idee is om A-10's te kopen vraag ik me af hoeveel van die dingen je operationeel kan inzetten als je er 12 tot 16 hebt. Lijkt me dat als je ten alle tijde een inzet van een minimum van pak em beet 4 van die dingen wilt kunnen garanderen je er meer nodig hebt.
Ik denk dat je A versie, die dan nog wel z'n update moet krijgen, in combinatie met de F15SE, als package deal krijgt voor een bedrag waar helemaal niemand triest van wordt.
Volgens Wikipedia: Unit cost US$11.8 million (average, 1994 dollars). Het zou me niets verbazen als ze tegen een symbolisch bedrag kunnen worden overgedragen, het op de C standaard brengen kost dan wel geld natuurlijk, waarbij ik geen idee heb waar we het dan over hebben.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/02/2012 | 18:47 uur
Volgens Wikipedia: Unit cost US$11.8 million (average, 1994 dollars). Het zou me niets verbazen als ze tegen een symbolisch bedrag kunnen worden overgedragen, het op de C standaard brengen kost dan wel geld natuurlijk, waarbij ik geen idee heb waar we het dan over hebben.
Hier meer info over bedragen van de update en instand houden van de A-10 Thunderbolt II
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/02/2012 | 10:10 uur
Als Klu zou ik gaan voor een oplossing die tot 2035-40 vrijwel alle dreigen het hoofd kan bieden tegen een acceptale prijs om vervolgens na periode aan te haken met de ontwikkelingen die dan aktueel zijn en van de plak te koop zijn.
Wat mij berteft: (68) F15 voor de Klu of de combinatie F15/A10 (48/24)
Indirecte & directe kosten per vlieguur FY2010 US Air Force:
F-16C: USD 19.087 (100), directe kosten = USD 7.750
F-15E: USD 28.639 (150) -> maximale vloot omvang = ca. 45 kisten.
A-10C: USD 24.102 (126)
Dat gaat hem dus niet worden! Beter 68 adequate Gripen NG's aanschaffen die USD 6.000 per uur kosten.
Een A-10C heeft een CAS / COIN sortie duur van ca. 2 uur. Een van de meest doeltreffende COIN / CAS vliegtuigen boven Vietnam, de A-1 Skyraider had een gemiddelde sortie duur van 4 uur. De F-16AM komt slechts tot ca. 1,5 uur zonder bijtanken. Onze AH-64D's halen met een extra interne peut tank 2 uur en 3 kwartier.
De AH-64D zonder Longbow radar koste in FY2010 volgens de US Army USD 5.244 en ca. 20 uur man-uren onderhoud per vlieguur.
Der uit met die 29 Apaches! We kopen vervolgens 12 Super Tucanos a USD 9 miljoen, deze kosten per vlieguur slechts USD 1.000 (2010) en 1,5 man-uren onderhoud. Utiliteits-, en lichte transport helikopters zijn absoluut noodzakelijk! Dus we kopen 17 UH-60M Black Hawks, die kosten in 2011 per vlieguur USD 5.897.
Voor minder geld meer doelmatigheid en doeltreffendheid.
Weet iemand wat een M-346 of een vergelijkbaar toestel per vlieguur zou kosten?
Citaat van: Poleme op 19/02/2012 | 20:10 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/02/2012 | 10:10 uur
Als Klu zou ik gaan voor een oplossing die tot 2035-40 vrijwel alle dreigen het hoofd kan bieden tegen een acceptale prijs om vervolgens na periode aan te haken met de ontwikkelingen die dan aktueel zijn en van de plak te koop zijn.
Wat mij berteft: (68) F15 voor de Klu of de combinatie F15/A10 (48/24)
Indirecte & directe kosten per vlieguur FY2010 US Air Force:
F-16C: USD 19.087 (100), directe kosten = USD 7.750
F-15E: USD 28.639 (150) -> maximale vloot omvang = ca. 45 kisten.
A-10C: USD 24.102 (126)
Dat gaat hem dus niet worden! Beter 68 adequate Gripen NG's aanschaffen die USD 6.000 per uur kosten.
Een A-10C heeft een CAS / COIN sortie duur van ca. 2 uur. Een van de meest doeltreffende COIN / CAS vliegtuigen boven Vietnam, de A-1 Skyraider had een gemiddelde sortie duur van 4 uur. De F-16AM komt slechts tot ca. 1,5 uur zonder bijtanken. Onze AH-64D's halen met een extra interne peut tank 2 uur en 3 kwartier.
De AH-64D zonder Longbow radar koste in FY2010 volgens de US Army USD 5.244 en ca. 20 uur man-uren onderhoud per vlieguur.
Der uit met die 29 Apaches! We kopen vervolgens 12 Super Tucanos a USD 9 miljoen, deze kosten per vlieguur slechts USD 1.000 (2010) en 1,5 man-uren onderhoud. Utiliteits-, en lichte transport helikopters zijn absoluut noodzakelijk! Dus we kopen 17 UH-60M Black Hawks, die kosten in 2011 per vlieguur USD 5.897.
Voor minder geld meer doelmatigheid en doeltreffendheid.
Hoezo 45 toestellen, maximaal ?. Naar mijn weten kost een F-15E USD $ 100 miljoen (ca. 76 miljoen euro), dan kun je meer dan 45 toestellen kopen toch met een budget van 4,4 miljard euro........ 57 toestellen, als ik even reken.
Maar als ik 24 stuks A-10C (ala 20 miljoen euro (aanname)) koop dan heb ik nog 3,9 miljard euro over, dan kan ik nog 51 F-15E's kopen
Dus een Combi van 45 F-15SE en 24 A-10C lijkt me financieel haalbaar.
En dan? Ze in de hangar laten wegroesten?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 00:10 uur
En dan? Ze in de hangar laten wegroesten?
Wat doen onze toestellen nu dan? Welke configuratie je ook bedenkt voor de (toekomstige) Klu, veel meer dan training, patrouille, Russen pesten en zo nu en dan een internationale missie zullen ze doorgaans ook niet doen. Dus wat dat betreft kun je net zo goed een vloot van B2 bommenwerpers bedenken (worden er wel 4 met ons budget!). We gaan er in ieder geval niet de missies mee uitvoeren die de huidige luchtmachtbobo's bij elkaar fantaseren te gaan doen met hun geliefde Joint Strike Massager.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 00:10 uur
En dan? Ze in de hangar laten wegroesten?
Dat argument kan je ook gebruiken voor een Viking. :devil:
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 00:10 uur
En dan? Ze in de hangar laten wegroesten?
Ik begrijp uit je woorden dat jij geen vervanger wil voor onze huidige F-16's .... jammer..
New F-16V version signal that F-35 program is in trouble?
SINGAPORE, Feb. 15, 2012 – Lockheed Martin unveiled a new version of the F-16 today at the Singapore Airshow. The F-16V will feature enhancements including an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, an upgraded mission computer and architecture, and improvements to the cockpit – all capabilities identified by the U.S. Air Force and several international customers for future improvements.
With nearly 4,500 F-16s delivered, this is a natural step in the evolution of the world's most successful 4th generation fighter. The Fighting Falcon program has continually evolved as it began with the F-16 A/B as the lightweight fighter then transitioned to F-16 C/D and Block 60 versions as customers' requirements changed.
AESA radars offer significant operational capability improvements. Lockheed Martin has developed an innovative solution to affordably retrofit this key technology into existing F-16s. The F-16V configuration is an option for new production jets and elements of the upgrade are available to most earlier-model F-16s. The "V" designation is derived from Viper, the name fighter pilots have called the F-16 from its beginnings.
"We believe this F-16V will satisfy our customers' emerging requirements and prepare them to better interoperate with the 5th generation fighters, the F-35 and F-22," said George Standridge, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics' vice president of business development.
The F-16 is the choice of 26 nations. The F-16 program has been characterized by unprecedented international cooperation among governments, air forces and aerospace industries.
Source: Press Release Lockheed Martin; 15-feb-2012
Comments editor:
Important reason is to generate new order to fill the hole left by the delayed F-35 production. It seems Lockheed Martin is looking for new opportunities that would carry the F-16 line through 2015 and beyond.
Key item of the new version is the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and a modernized cockpit and mission computer.
Analyst are seeing it as a signal: when Lockheed Martin actively promotes the F-16 in the market place, that will be a sure acknowledgement that the F-35 programme is in serious trouble and they don't want to loss their fighter jet market share. When new F-16V Viper jets are sold as a replacement of old F-16A/B/C/D, these sales will block future sales of new F-35's.
In that case the new F-16V is bad news for the world wide F-35 industrial supply chain, that has heavily invested in F-35 production facilities.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 10:25 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 00:10 uur
En dan? Ze in de hangar laten wegroesten?
Ik begrijp uit je woorden dat jij geen vervanger wil voor onze huidige F-16's .... jammer..
De aankoop kosten mogen dan wel betaalbaar zijn maar de exploitatiekosten van wat jij voorstelt vallen niet binnen het budget.
Zoals Polemne zegt, 45 F-15's is misschien nog net te doen.
Maar pin me er niet op vast.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 11:33 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 10:25 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 00:10 uur
En dan? Ze in de hangar laten wegroesten?
Ik begrijp uit je woorden dat jij geen vervanger wil voor onze huidige F-16's .... jammer..
De aankoop kosten mogen dan wel betaalbaar zijn maar de exploitatiekosten van wat jij voorstelt vallen niet binnen het budget.
Zoals Polemne zegt, 45 F-15's is misschien nog net te doen.
Maar pin me er niet op vast.
ok, dus we hebben maar 1 keus als vervanger ! ... Gripen NG ... of niet ?
ik deel deze mening niet, vlieg-uur kosten van de JSF zijn nog hoger dan de F-15E, F-18E/F. Je krijgt al minder hoge exploitatiekosten. Exploitatiekosten komen uit een ander budget, niet uit de 4,4 miljard euro.
Ik ben van mening dat er meerdere keuzes zijn voor de invulling als vervanger voor de F-16
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 11:43 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 11:33 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 10:25 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 00:10 uur
En dan? Ze in de hangar laten wegroesten?
Ik begrijp uit je woorden dat jij geen vervanger wil voor onze huidige F-16's .... jammer..
De aankoop kosten mogen dan wel betaalbaar zijn maar de exploitatiekosten van wat jij voorstelt vallen niet binnen het budget.
Zoals Polemne zegt, 45 F-15's is misschien nog net te doen.
Maar pin me er niet op vast.
ok, dus we hebben maar 1 keus als vervanger ! ... Gripen NG ... of niet ?
ik deel deze mening niet, vlieg-uur kosten van de JSF zijn nog hoger dan de F-15E, F-18E/F. Je krijgt al minder hoge exploitatiekosten. Exploitatiekosten komen uit een ander budget, niet uit de 4,4 miljard euro.
Ik ben van mening dat er meerdere keuzes zijn voor de invulling als vervanger voor de F-16
Dat budget is rond de 10 miljard. Of dat moet ook verlaagd zijn, maar dat is volgens mij niet het geval.
Eventueel zou een nieuwe F-16 qua exploitatiekosten ook haalbaar zijn maar dat toestel is dan wel weer inferieur aan de jas-39. (Maar geniet nog steeds mijn voorkeur boven de onbetaalbare F-15 en EF.)
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 11:43 uur
Ik ben van mening dat er meerdere keuzes zijn voor de invulling als vervanger voor de F-16
+1
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 11:57 uur
Eventueel zou een nieuwe F-16 qua exploitatiekosten ook haalbaar zijn maar dat toestel is dan wel weer inferieur aan de jas-39. (Maar geniet nog steeds mijn voorkeur boven de onbetaalbare F-15 en EF.)
Onbetaalbaar is een relatief begrip. Laten we er nu eens een keer vanuit gaan dat de huidige economische dip ook weer een stijgende lijn zal laten zien.
Nu is bezuinigingen het hype woord.... Hoe is de situatie in 2020... zijn we dan een 2e of 3e wereld land geworden??
Nee toch!
?
Wil je dan (veel?) meer dan 10 miljard uitgeven aan de exploitatie van nog geen 70 kisten?!
Wat denk je wat dat gaat betekenen voor het defensiebudget in zijn geheel? Juist... Schrijf die M opvolger maar op je buik en geschut is ook maar een middeleeuws concept of niet soms >:(.
Ik ben helemaal voor een forse verhoging van het budget maar dan moet je dat vervolgens niet in zijn grotendeels opmaken aan veel te dure fighters met vlieguurkosten van rond de $25000. Er zijn belangrijkere zaken wat mij betreft.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 13:25 uur
Wil je dan (veel?) meer dan 10 miljard uitgeven aan de exploitatie van nog geen 70 kisten?!
Geen idee wat dat mag kosten, maar bedenk dat 10 mjd wordt gedeeld door 30 jaar = 333 mjn per jaar. (= <5% jaarlijkse defensiebegroting)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/02/2012 | 13:39 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 13:25 uur
Wil je dan (veel?) meer dan 10 miljard uitgeven aan de exploitatie van nog geen 70 kisten?!
Geen idee wat dat mag kosten, maar bedenk dat 10 mjd wordt gedeeld door 30 jaar = 333 mjn per jaar. (= <5% jaarlijkse defensiebegroting)
Nu ga ik even heel simpel rekenen, geen rekening houdend met andere zaken dan alleen vlieg-uurkosten
333 miljoen euro per jaar voor 68 toestellen, per toestel is dit : 4,9 miljoen euro
1 toestel heeft ca. 220 vlieg-uren per jaar
dus 4,9 miljoen delen door 220 vlieg-uren = 22270 euro per vlieg-uur = 29300 dollar per vlieg-uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 13:25 uur
Wil je dan (veel?) meer dan 10 miljard uitgeven aan de exploitatie van nog geen 70 kisten?!
Excuse me, waar komt die 10 miljard Euro aan exploitatiekosten voor 30 jaar vandaan?
Citaat van: Sandgroper op 20/02/2012 | 19:03 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 13:25 uur
Wil je dan (veel?) meer dan 10 miljard uitgeven aan de exploitatie van nog geen 70 kisten?!
Excuse me, waar komt die 10 miljard Euro aan exploitatiekosten voor 30 jaar vandaan?
Het originele (NL) exploitatiebudget voor de F16 opvolger staat voor 30 jaar op 10 mjd euro, een bedrag wat bij mijn beste weten niet is aangepast. Wel is het aanschaf (plan) budget verlaagt tot 4,5 mjd euro.
Met dank aan: Posted by Ian Knight
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Project Vervanging F16
Discussion:Algemene discussie Project vervanging F-16
Zeer fraaie foto's van flight test met external AIM-9X en 3000# weapon pylons!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9967551/F-35%20External%20Weapons%202.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9967551/F-35%20External%20Weapons.jpg
Positief ding, het is wel een mooi toestel 8)
Van sommige hoeken ja, van opzij is het net een opgepimte Harrier zo dik. Maar dat is het dan eigenlijk ook.
F-35 Begins Flight Tests Equipped With External Missiles
The U.S. Air Force's F-35A version of the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has begun flight testing with external stores at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., plane-maker Lockheed Martin said Feb. 20.
The JSF test force flew a plane loaded with two AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles, each carried on an external pylon. Additionally, the jet carried two 2,000-pound bombs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles inside its twin internal weapon bays. A photo accompanying the Lockheed release indicates that the aircraft was also carrying four additional pylons that were not loaded.
The fifth-generation fighter is designed to carry up to 18,000 pounds on 10 weapon stations. Four of those weapon stations are inside its two weapon bays, the rest are on each wing. The wing weapon stations would only be used when stealth is not a priority as external carriage would betray the jet to enemy radars.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120220/DEFREG02/302200012/F-35-Begins-Flight-Tests-Equipped-External-Missiles?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Pylons met wapens eraan is 1, daadwerkelijk afvuren en een (oefen)doel raken is 2.
Wordt dit met opzet nu ineens gedaan en foto's in de media gestuurd om klanten/ landen te sussen en eerdere geruchten over externe bewaping optioneel en meerwerk en geen prioriteit hebbende.
Tevens een middel om de F-35 in de race te houden in de competitie voor Zuid Korea ??
Aan deze media aandacht voor wapens extern bij de F-35 vind ik verdacht.
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 23:08 uur
Aan deze media aandacht voor wapens extern bij de F-35 vind ik verdacht.
Het komt idd wel op een "goed" tijdstip.
Was het al zo gepland? en komt het simpelweg goed uit? of is het een bewuste (commercieële) keuze?
JSF second tranche plan may go into 2013
15:31 AEDT Tue Feb 21 2012
Australia's plans to buy a second tranche of 58 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft could be pushed out to 2013 or beyond.
The decision is not a major priority, against Defence Minister Stephen Smith's current focus on a potential gap in Australia's air combat capability after the retirement of the RAAF's 71 ageing F/A-18 Hornet aircraft.
"So in the course of this year, we will make a range of judgements ... about whether there's a risk of a capability gap and what steps we need to take," Mr Smith told the Australian Defence Magazine congress in Canberra.
Australia is presently committed to buying 14 advanced Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF aircraft and contractually obliged to take the first two in 2014.
The other 12 JSFs are scheduled for delivery between 2015 and 2017.
Mr Smith says the government has reached no conclusion about what to do if there is a capability gap between retirement of the F/A-18 Hornets and the delayed arrival of JSF.
However, adding more Super Hornets to the 24 now in service is an obvious option.
Mr Smith says the government needs to make a judgement about the timing of delivery of the next 12 JSF aircraft, but it is not a priority.
The Defence Capability Plan says approval for the next tranche of 58 aircraft was set for 2012.
Australia is planning to buy as many as 100 JSF aircraft to replace Hornet and F-111 aircraft and form the mainstay of the RAAF out to mid-century.
JSF has been criticised as likely to run late, cost too much and fail to deliver all the promised advanced capability.
The latest problem relates to what's termed concurrency, with the Pentagon's top procurement officer Frank Kendal declaring it a miscalculation to believe it possible to conduct aircraft production concurrent with the trials program.
That test program has highlighted a number of problems which could require expensive and time consuming design modifications. The US looks set to defer purchase of 179 aircraft.
Mr Smith says the US has devoted so much to this project that in the end it will be successful.
"The first risk from our perspective in my view has always been capability gap, by the scheduling. Secondly, of course there is a unit cost risk as well," he said.
Mr Smith says Australia has been sensible from the outset in opting only for the conventional landing and takeoff JSF variant.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8423207/jsf-second-tranche-plan-may-go-into-2013
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/02/2012 | 07:38 uur
Australia's plans to buy a second tranche of 58 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft could be pushed out to 2013 or beyond.
Zomaar een gok...
Totale doelstelling voor Down Under: 100 JSF
batch 1: 14 F35A
batch 2: 58 F35A
batch 3: 28 F18E
Als aanname denk ik dat het max aantal F35's voor de RAAF 72 zal zijn.
F35 fighters price rise 'unknown'
The Government "doesn't know" how much the price of new aircraft carrier fighter jets will rise by because of cancellations abroad.
Defence Equipment Minister Peter Luff told the Commons that order changes from other countries would have "implications" for the price of the F35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF).
The Lockheed Martin-built jets are due to be purchased to fly from the UK's Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers which are currently under construction.
Speaking during Defence Questions in the Commons, shadow defence minister Alison Seabeck said: "What is the intention around the F35 programme, in particular given rumoured reductions in orders from the USA, Australia and Canada?
"Do you expect the price of each F35 to rise and have you taken a view on exactly the point at which they become unaffordable?"
Mr Luff replied: "The honest answer is we don't know. The Americans are not reducing the total numbers of JSF but changing the profile of those purchases. Other partner nations are indicating they are going to reduce their actual off take.
"This is likely to have implications for JSF prices particularly in the early stages which is when this country intends to procure its (fighters).
"There are implications, we are watching them very carefully and I'm happy to talk to you separately about the implications for the UK."
Copyright © 2012 The Press Association.
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 23:08 uur
F-35 Begins Flight Tests Equipped With External Missiles
The U.S. Air Force's F-35A version of the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has begun flight testing with external stores at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., plane-maker Lockheed Martin said Feb. 20.
The JSF test force flew a plane loaded with two AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles, each carried on an external pylon. Additionally, the jet carried two 2,000-pound bombs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles inside its twin internal weapon bays. A photo accompanying the Lockheed release indicates that the aircraft was also carrying four additional pylons that were not loaded.
The fifth-generation fighter is designed to carry up to 18,000 pounds on 10 weapon stations. Four of those weapon stations are inside its two weapon bays, the rest are on each wing. The wing weapon stations would only be used when stealth is not a priority as external carriage would betray the jet to enemy radars.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120220/DEFREG02/302200012/F-35-Begins-Flight-Tests-Equipped-External-Missiles?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Pylons met wapens eraan is 1, daadwerkelijk afvuren en een (oefen)doel raken is 2.
Wordt dit met opzet nu ineens gedaan en foto's in de media gestuurd om klanten/ landen te sussen en eerdere geruchten over externe bewaping optioneel en meerwerk en geen prioriteit hebbende.
Tevens een middel om de F-35 in de race te houden in de competitie voor Zuid Korea ??
Aan deze media aandacht voor wapens extern bij de F-35 vind ik verdacht.
Harald, je hebt gelijk dat het "verdacht" is. Als je de huidige planning bijvoorbeeld in de QLR erbij haalt.. dan zie je dat A. interne bewapening testen eerst op het programma staat vanaf halverwege 2012.. en dan vanaf 2016 externe bewapening. Op het moment is het zelfs zo dat die nog niet gefinancierd is. Als het niet in de planning zit. waarom gaan ze dan met pylons vliegen? Of LM houdt zich niet aan zijn eigen planning of er is iets anders aan de hand.
Heeft het soms met het persbericht dat ik hier laatst al geplaatst heb over Korea te maken? In dat artikel gaven woorvoerders van LM zelfs aan dat het eigenlijk ook niet echt nodig is om extern te vervoeren. Dan ben je Stealth kwijt.
"If you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy. That's not normally how you are going to operate F-35s," he said. "
{Randy Howard, Lockheed Martin's director of the Korea F-35 Campaign, also acknowledged that the external carriage may come as an option for Korea.
"Lockheed Martin did not cancel it, the U.S. government prioritized it," Howard said, explaining why doubts have been raised over the development of the F-35's external hard points.
"The F-35 is designed to carry weapons internally. That's what it does, and that's why it is stealthy."
He argued that the F-35's primary attribute, the ability to penetrate into the enemy's territory without being detected, will be significantly compromised if Korea chooses to mount weapons externally.
"If you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy. That's not normally how you are going to operate F-35s," he said.
He did note that if Korea insists on the F-35 to have an external carriage, his company is willing to customize it.
"It is only a question of prioritization of weapon certification," he argued.
"If there are requirements for the external carriage of different weapons, it is not a hard thing because all of the capabilities are there."
Other industry officials, however, refuted Howard's claim, saying the development of external pylons not only reduces the aircraft stealth capabilities, but also requires a fundamental change in the aircraft design, which the USAF is not willing to pay for.}
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/116_104306.html (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/02/116_104306.html)
Volgens mij is hier iets meer aan de hand dan het aanleveren van mooie kiekjes. Ik wil niet achterdochtig zijn maar als dit nu nog niet in de planning zit. Eerst intern vanaf 2012 en dan pas na 2016 (als de financiering daarvoor rondkomt extern... en dan sturen ze nu ineens kiekjes de wijde wereld in.
- Is dit een foutje in de planning?
- Is dit een poging om Zuid-Korea (en anderen) gunstig te stemmen?
- Easy / quik win? (even met dummy pylons op gunstige snelheid rondvliegen voor de fotoshoot?)
[/li]
[/list]
Ik heb de scan er even overheen gehaald en ze zijn wel gefotoshopt. Laten we er maar even van uit gaan dat het alleen is om de kleuren mooier te maken.
@ Chrisis ..... Precies wat ik bedoel, ik wist de planning voor het testen zo niet meer, maar wist wel dat dit nog lang niet aan de orde was ivm testen alleen voor luchtvaardigheiden sofware en nog niets met wapens.
het eerste test toestel van Nederland wordt en is ook alleen voor testen van het toestel en zijn vluchtgedrag (dubbelzinnig .. :lol:)
Dus deze foto's in eens te publiceren is mijns inziens erg verdacht, LM doet een noodsprong om te laten zien aan de wereld : kijk ook met externe pylons en wapens. Dit is allemaal voor de show want ze kunnen ze totaal niet testen, want de software is nog lang niet zover.
Als de foto's daadwerkelijk fake zouden zijn, dus geshopt ...... :dead:...
kun je zien waar op de foto's geshopt is ??
Hoi wacht even ik heb niet gezegd dat ze fake zijn. Ik maakte alleen een grapje over dat de uitkomst van de test was dat ze gefotoshopt zijn, maar dat kan ook alleen maar betekenen dat ze een mooiere kleur hebben gekregen.
Die Pylons zitten er denk ik wel echt op.. Er zijn geen foto's met de interne bewapening. In het artikel van aviationweek zeggen ze dat die er wel in hingen. Dat lijkt me dus wel bluf.
Eric Palmer schreef er ook nog over dat ze er nog niets mee kunnen (testen) omdat ze nog problemen hebben met het richtsysteem HMDS etc.
Even gegoogled en er zijn wel meer foto's te vinden van bewapening onder een F-35
Dus de foto's welke nu rondgaan zullen niet fake zijn. Maar de enigste reden welke ik nu kan bedenken om externe bewaping onder een F-35 te hangen is om te zien hoe het toestel reageerd met bewapingen intern en extern.
De belangrijkste reden is voor LM om dit te laten zien is een show of pylon extern onder een F-35, vooral voor de wereld om te laten zien we zijn aan het "testen" met bewapening en voor om de klanten een mooi plaatje te laten zien, kijk eens wat wel al doen.
En dit vooral voor de competitie in Zuid Korea, zonder externe pylons valt de F-35 gelijk af.
Maar ook voor andere klanten zoals Nederland, Noorwegen, Australie, Israel .......... een dikke lolly ... en zoethoudertje..
De sotware is nog lang niet zo ver om bewapening te testen, laat staan af te vuren en ja .... ze hebben nog een enorm probleem met het richtsysteem (welke geintergreerd is in de helm). er is geen HUD namelijk, dus voor het afvuren moeten ze het "helm" probleem opgelost hebben of terug naar de tekentafel en een HUD er in bouwen. En dit zal nogal wat consequenties hebben voor de cockpit indeling.
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/f35b_extldgun_114.jpg
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18307.html
Citaat van: Chrisis op 21/02/2012 | 09:07 uur
Ik heb de scan er even overheen gehaald en ze zijn wel gefotoshopt. Laten we er maar even van uit gaan dat het alleen is om de kleuren mooier te maken.
Ik zie een verschil in grijskleur tussen de pylons en de F35 zelf. Zijn die pylons geleend van een ander LM vliegtuig (F16 of F22)?
Ben benieuwd naar de testresultaten, zoals toenemende "drag", beperking van de actieradius, en beperking van de snelheid.
Citaat van: dudge op 21/02/2012 | 14:41 uur
Hoeveel testtoestellen zijn er nu eigenlijk gekocht?
2 voor Nederland, maar totaal zal toch al wel een stuk meer zijn?
Waarom zijn er zoveel nodig? Van de EF zijn ook maar een stuk of 4 testtoestellen gebouwd?
zie hier :
The SDD period involves the development and testing of the entire aircraft system, including its manufacture. During SDD, the team will build a total of 22 test aircraft. Fourteen will undergo flight-testing, seven will be used for non-airborne test activities, and one will be used to evaluate the F-35's radar signature.http://www.jsf.mil/f35/
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 14:07 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/02/2012 | 13:39 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 13:25 uur
Wil je dan (veel?) meer dan 10 miljard uitgeven aan de exploitatie van nog geen 70 kisten?!
Geen idee wat dat mag kosten, maar bedenk dat 10 mjd wordt gedeeld door 30 jaar = 333 mjn per jaar. (= <5% jaarlijkse defensiebegroting)
Nu ga ik even heel simpel rekenen, geen rekening houdend met andere zaken dan alleen vlieg-uurkosten
333 miljoen euro per jaar voor 68 toestellen, per toestel is dit : 4,9 miljoen euro
1 toestel heeft ca. 220 vlieg-uren per jaar
dus 4,9 miljoen delen door 220 vlieg-uren = 22270 euro per vlieg-uur = 29300 dollar per vlieg-uur
2008, KRO Reporter aflevering over het JSF.
KLu, de totale F-35A exploitatie kosten bedragen in 2008 euro's 7,5 miljard voor 85 kisten.
Winslow Wheeler, de KLu is totaal EUR 9 miljard kwijt aan exploitatie kosten.
KRO Reporter: Mr. Wheeler waar baseert u dit bedrag op? Op de meest actuele schattingen, maar ik denk dat het uiteindelijke bedrag zelfs nog hoger uitvalt.
Er wordt helaas niet aan de KLu gevraagd waar zij de EUR 7,5 miljard op baseerden. Dit bedrag is gebaseerd op het jaarlijkse jachtvliegtuig vloot budget. Dit bedroeg in 2008 ca. EUR 250 miljoen voor 105 F-16AM's die toen voor iets minder dan 50% inzetbaar waren.
Nog geen 12 maanden later verklaard de KLu dat de totale F-35A exploitatie kosten waren gestegen tot EUR 9 miljard, is een stijging van 20%.
In 2010 gaat de KLu er zelfs vanuit dat deze kosten iets meer dan EUR 10 miljard zullen bedragen, is een stijging van 33% t.o.v. het oorspronkelijk bedrag.
In datzelfde jaar echter gaat het jachtvliegtuig vloot budget structureel met EUR 100 miljoen omlaag, is ca. 40% omlaag.
Deze verlaging wordt bereikt door afstoting van 18 F-16AM's naar Chili en de inzetbaarheid gaat van een kleine 50% naar ca. 30%.
Rekening houdend met ruim EUR 10 miljard gebruikskosten voor 85 F-35A's over 30 jaar en een jaarlijks jachtvliegtuigen budget a dik EUR 150 miljoen. Kan de KLu nu dus maximaal 38 F-35A's exploiteren.
Een F-15E koste bij de US Air Force in 2010 direct & indirect USD 28.639 per vlieguur. Veronderstel dat we dit bedrag direct om kunnen zetten in Euro's, geeft EUR 22.030 per vlieguur, is EUR 3.965.400 per kist per jaar . EUR 150 miljoen / 3,965 miljoen = ca. 38 KLu F-15E's.
Bij een inzetbaarheid van 30% geeft dit dus in dit geval totaal 11 operationeel inzetbare F-35A's of F-15E's. :(
Japan warns U.S. price of F-35 fighter must not rise
Wed, 22nd Feb 2012 05:49
TOKYO, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Japan has repeatedly warned the United States
against price rises in Lockheed Martin Corp's new F-35 fighter jet, its top government spokesman said on Wednesday, after U.S. and Lockheed officials noted delays in orders will increase its total cost.
The comments from Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura come after Japan's Sankei newspaper cited unidentified U.S. government officials as saying that Japan had threatened that it may even cancel its orders if prices climbed.
Japan picked the F-35 as its next mainstay fighter in December, choosing it over combat-proven but less stealthy rivals.
'When we were selecting the fighter, we asked those making the proposals to strictly observe their proposed prices and supply schedules. Japan has conveyed this to the U.S. from time to time,' Fujimura told a news conference.
The Pentagon last week confirmed plans to put off orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, a move that Lockheed executive vice president Tom Burbage told Reuters would increase the price of the plane somewhat.
Canadian officials have been told the price of their jets would increase by a nominal percentage amount 'in the low single digits' as a result of the U.S. slowdown.
Japan's Defense Ministry has said each jet would cost 8.9 billion yen ($112 million), or 9.9 billion yen including spare parts. The ministry plans to buy 4 jets in the year beginning in April and 42 units eventually.
($1 = 79.7500 Japanese yen)
http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?ArticleCode=51fvrhqauqeq6fd&ArticleHeadline=Japan_warns_US_price_of_F35_fighter_must_not_rise
Nog een interesante F35 foto, via Ian Knight/LinkedIn
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9967551/f-35%20Weapon%20Bays%20Open.jpg
Citaat van: dudge op 22/02/2012 | 11:51 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/02/2012 | 07:54 uur
Nog een interesante F35 foto, via Ian Knight/LinkedIn
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9967551/f-35%20Weapon%20Bays%20Open.jpg
Ja, het lijkt wel of die bommen ingegespt zitten, met die stalen banden. Dat is toch anders als het normale systeem als ze 'buiten' hangen.
Gezien het filmpje in je andere posting, daarom hebben ze extra banden eromheen gedaan voor het eruit vallen .... :crazy: ..
ik vind de ruimte bij de staart van de bom in de bay wel erg aan de krappe kant, bij het afwerpen heeft een bom naar achteren te "vallen".
je krijgt bijna het gevoel dat de staart blijft haken op de rand van de weapons bay of dat hij tegen de baydoors komt.
Maar daar zullen ze toch bij LM wel naar gekeken hebben en over nagedacht hebben, lijkt mij
Citaat van: Poleme op 21/02/2012 | 19:45 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 20/02/2012 | 14:07 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 20/02/2012 | 13:39 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 20/02/2012 | 13:25 uur
Wil je dan (veel?) meer dan 10 miljard uitgeven aan de exploitatie van nog geen 70 kisten?!
Geen idee wat dat mag kosten, maar bedenk dat 10 mjd wordt gedeeld door 30 jaar = 333 mjn per jaar. (= <5% jaarlijkse defensiebegroting)
Nu ga ik even heel simpel rekenen, geen rekening houdend met andere zaken dan alleen vlieg-uurkosten
333 miljoen euro per jaar voor 68 toestellen, per toestel is dit : 4,9 miljoen euro
1 toestel heeft ca. 220 vlieg-uren per jaar
dus 4,9 miljoen delen door 220 vlieg-uren = 22270 euro per vlieg-uur = 29300 dollar per vlieg-uur
2008, KRO Reporter aflevering over het JSF.
KLu, de totale F-35A exploitatie kosten bedragen in 2008 euro's 7,5 miljard voor 85 kisten.
Winslow Wheeler, de KLu is totaal EUR 9 miljard kwijt aan exploitatie kosten.
KRO Reporter: Mr. Wheeler waar baseert u dit bedrag op? Op de meest actuele schattingen, maar ik denk dat het uiteindelijke bedrag zelfs nog hoger uitvalt.
Er wordt helaas niet aan de KLu gevraagd waar zij de EUR 7,5 miljard op baseerden. Dit bedrag is gebaseerd op het jaarlijkse jachtvliegtuig vloot budget. Dit bedroeg in 2008 ca. EUR 250 miljoen voor 105 F-16AM's die toen voor iets minder dan 50% inzetbaar waren.
Nog geen 12 maanden later verklaard de KLu dat de totale F-35A exploitatie kosten waren gestegen tot EUR 9 miljard, is een stijging van 20%.
In 2010 gaat de KLu er zelfs vanuit dat deze kosten iets meer dan EUR 10 miljard zullen bedragen, is een stijging van 33% t.o.v. het oorspronkelijk bedrag.
In datzelfde jaar echter gaat het jachtvliegtuig vloot budget structureel met EUR 100 miljoen omlaag, is ca. 40% omlaag.
Deze verlaging wordt bereikt door afstoting van 18 F-16AM's naar Chili en de inzetbaarheid gaat van een kleine 50% naar ca. 30%.
Rekening houdend met ruim EUR 10 miljard gebruikskosten voor 85 F-35A's over 30 jaar en een jaarlijks jachtvliegtuigen budget a dik EUR 150 miljoen. Kan de KLu nu dus maximaal 38 F-35A's exploiteren.
Een F-15E koste bij de US Air Force in 2010 direct & indirect USD 28.639 per vlieguur. Veronderstel dat we dit bedrag direct om kunnen zetten in Euro's, geeft EUR 22.030 per vlieguur, is EUR 3.965.400 per kist per jaar . EUR 150 miljoen / 3,965 miljoen = ca. 38 KLu F-15E's.
Bij een inzetbaarheid van 30% geeft dit dus in dit geval totaal 11 operationeel inzetbare F-35A's of F-15E's. :(
En hoe zou dat zijn met nieuwe F-16's of de JAS-39?
First F-35C flight for the United Kingdom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeAIdpsbTZk&feature=youtu.be
JSF Production Might Be Further Slowed
Feb. 22, 2012 - 11:56AM
By DAVE MAJUMDAR | Comments
The Pentagon's Defense Acquisitions Board (DAB) of top weapons buyers recertified the tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program during a Feb. 21 meeting, but high sustainment costs might force the Pentagon to slow production down further or trim flight hours for aircrew, a senior defense official said.
The Pentagon had to recertify the program due to a 2010 breach in the Nunn-McCurdy rule, which occurs when the unit cost of a program goes above a certain level. The DAB meeting was chaired by acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall.
The Pentagon still needs to do some additional work on cost, the senior defense official said. Because of the way sustainment costs are calculated, affordability is still a problem, and that might mean that the number of aircraft bought in the near term might be further truncated or that flight training hours are curtailed, he said. The numbers are expected to fluctuate during the next five years.
Additionally, costs associated with military construction still have to be sorted out.
The Pentagon will issue a formal memorandum in the next few weeks.
"The actual decision of the acting [undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics] will come in a signed acquisition decision memorandum in the next few weeks, as soon as all the required certifications and documents are finalized," Defense Department spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin wrote in an email.
"Among these are an updated acquisition strategy reflecting the business plan going forward, as well as a new acquisition program baseline, which will set cost, schedule and performance parameters for the life of the program."
The plan right now is for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to buy a total of 2,443 jets — 1,763 F-35As for the Air Force, while the Navy and Marines will buy a total of 680 F-35B short take-off vertical-landing planes and F-35C carrier variants. The Marines want 340 F-35Bs and 80 F-35Cs while the Navy wants 260 F-35Cs.
Eight foreign partners are depending on the program: Australia, Canada, Britain, Turkey, Denmark, Holland, Norway and Italy. Additionally, Japan and Israel have committed to buying the jet.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120222/DEFREG02/302220005/JSF-Production-Might-Further-Slowed?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Saab Responds To Dassault's New Pitch for Swiss Fighter Buy
Feb. 22, 2012 - 01:34PM
By GERARD O'DWYER
HELSINKI — Saab has indicated that it may reduce its price to Switzerland regarding the sale of 22 JAS Gripen-NG multirole fighter aircraft. The cost issue re-emerged after Dassault presented a new offer, pitched at a lower price for a reduced number of aircraft, to the Swiss government.
The Swiss government provisionally approved preferred bidder status for the Gripen in November following a competition that also included France's Dassault Rafale and EADS' Eurofighter Typhoon. Boeing withdrew its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet bid from the competition in 2008, with the company stating that the aircraft was "overqualified" for the role outlined by Switzerland.
The French company's decision to lodge a new offer is prompted by the continuing opposition to the Gripen's selection by left-wing and center-right parties in the Swiss parliament, who are trying to derail the process by calling for a national referendum on the project.
Swiss Defense Minister Ueli Maurer defended the government's aircraft choice in parliament Feb. 8, stating that the preliminary decision was based on the superiority of the Gripen offer in long-term costs. However, the leftist and center-right parties want the acquisition program suspended until the government's procurement policy is reviewed by an independent committee and the Gripen's suitability reassessed.
Saab says it is prepared to discuss price.
"The price can be less than 3.1 billion Swiss francs [$3.4 billion]," said Anders Carp, the head of Saab's Switzerland division. The $3.4 billion figure was the "estimated" price provided by Saab to the Swiss government in 2011, said Carp. Saab has not revealed a firm price for the 22 Gripens, but the final cost could be in the range of $2.74 billion to $3 billion.
Dassault's revised offer, contained in a letter sent to the Swiss parliament's Commission on Security Affairs, amounts to $2.96 billion for 18 Rafale fighter aircraft. In its original offer, Dassault had priced the delivery of 22 Rafale fighters at $4.4 billion.
The Swiss government is expected to endorse the deal with Saab in coming weeks. The matter will then be forwarded to the legislature for final approval during the second half of 2012.
To reinforce the strength of its bid, Saab has offered the Swiss government the option of signing a purchase contract for the Gripen directly with the Swedish government, which would act as a guarantor in the event of any difficulty in delivering the aircraft.
Switzerland's fighter acquisition program is centered on the replacement of three of its five Tiger II Air Squadrons. The new multirole fighters are to partner with the three squadrons of upgraded F/A-18C/D Hornets that make up the rest of the Swiss Air Force's fighter fleet.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120222/DEFREG01/302220008/Saab-Responds-Dassault-8217-s-New-Pitch-Swiss-Fighter-Buy?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Turkey plans to buy 100 F-35 fighter jets
ISTANBUL | Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:05am EST
Feb 23 (Reuters) - Turkey plans to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jet for $16 billion, with the first two planes for delivery in 2015, Milliyet newspaper on Thursday reported Turkish defence minister Ismet Yilmaz as saying.
"Plane orders for future years will be considered separately depending on the negotiations which are being conducted," the paper reported Yilmaz as saying.
Lockheed Martin lost $31.5 million in award fees for the F-35 in 2011, the second consecutive year it did not meet Pentagon development goals for the aircraft, which is now facing a third restructuring.
The Pentagon said the $382 billion programme to build the radar-evading warplane was still showing "continued progress" and Lockheed said the new aircraft had made outstanding progress in flight test, training and production in 2011.
Concerns have been voiced among F-35 partner nations' over delays and rising costs. Eight international partners are already reconsidering their orders.
Canada has called a meeting of officials from the partner nations, which also include Australia, Britain, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Turkey for March 2 in Washington.
The F-35 programme has come under increased pressure in recent weeks given the Pentagon's plan to postpone orders of 179 F-35 fighter planes for five years, as part of defence budget cuts. The move will save $15.1 billion, but will likely drive up the price per plane, according to Lockheed and U.S. officials.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/turkey-f35-lockheed-idUSL5E8DN0RC20120223
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/02/2012 | 23:23 uur
The Pentagon still needs to do some additional work on cost, the senior defense official said. Because of the way sustainment costs are calculated, affordability is still a problem, and that might mean that the number of aircraft bought in the near term might be further truncated or that flight training hours are curtailed, he said.
Dus simpel gezegd weten ze nog steeds niet wat een F-35 definitief moet gaan kosten !
Hoe kun je een keuze maken voor een product, waarvan je niet weet wat de prijs is ? LM heeft toch wel de nodige ervaring in het bouwen van vliegtuigen, dus een raming/ inschatting van kosten e.d. hebben ze in al die jaren wel opgebouwd. Maar waarschijnlijk zit het probleem in dat ze zijn afgestapt van de traditionele manier van ontwikkelen, testen en bouwen. Hierdoor zijn de reverentie-cijfers niet meer te gebruiken. Tevens doordat ze testen en bouwen tegelijk laten lopen, ontdekken ze problemen in de constructie e.d. hierdoor moeten ze de toestellen die reeds zijn geproduceerd weer veranderen. Al deze extra kosten zijn niet te calculeren , omdat je niet weet of er nog problemen naar boven komen in het testprogramma. Het test programma is nog maar voor 20% afgewerkt.
Dus in de resterende 80% kunnen er nog de nodige mankementen boven water komen en dan heb ik het alleen nog maar over het testvliegen. Er is dan ook nog de problemen, met software, cockpit, hook (C-versie) enz....
Het kan dus ook anders !!
Boeing Completes F/A-18E/F, EA-18G Multi-Year Procurement II Deliveries Ahead of Schedule
•2 multi-year contracts with US Navy generated $1.7B in savings
•Deliveries completed early, on budget
Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that it has completed delivery of 257 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft to the U.S. Navy. Each aircraft was delivered ahead of schedule and within the contract budget.
The aircraft were delivered to the Navy from 2007 through 2011 under a multi-year procurement (MYP) contract
Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news-41177/Boeing_Completes_F/A-18E/F,_EA-18G_Multi-Year_Procurement_II_Deliveries_Ahead_of_Schedule.htm#ixzz1nBxKii51
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/02/2012 | 08:57 uur
Turkey plans to buy 100 F-35 fighter jets
Turkey plans to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jet for $16 billion, with the first two planes for delivery in 2015, Milliyet newspaper on Thursday reported Turkish defence minister Ismet Yilmaz as saying.
"Plane orders for future years will be considered separately depending on the negotiations which are being conducted," the paper reported Yilmaz as saying.
Dus het budget van Turkije is $ 16 miljard dollar = € 12,16 miljard euro voor 100 toestellen = € 121,6 miljoen per toestel
In vergelijking met het budget van Nederland is dit budget veel hoger en zouden 36 toestellen kunnen kopen.
The USAF wants to fast track the Long Range Strike-Bomber
The USAF wants to fast track the Long Range Strike-Bomber, with the intention to get it operational by 2020 instead of the mid 2020's. F-35 does not have the legs for deep strike in the Asia Pacific region, so it's possible that LRS-B could compete with the F-35 for that particular mission (and others.) The question then becomes will the LRS-B adversely affect F-35 procurement, particularly since they both come online in roughly the same time frame.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18123.html
http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/15/dod-fast-tracks-new-bomber-planning-number-is-550-million-pe/
Ontwikkeling van de Long Range Strike Bomber, gaat dit ook weer ten koste van de aantallen F-35 ???
en hoe zal die eruit zien ? LM heeft al wel een idee
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=58806
South Korea Becomes Next Fighter Battleground
Feb 23, 2012
By Robert Wall, Leithen Francis
Singapore, Singapore
The gloves are coming off. International fighter competitions are rarely gentlemanly affairs, but with U.S. and European defense spending in decline, the pressure to succeed overseas has aircraft makers and equipment suppliers becoming more aggressive in the push to secure crucial foreign orders.
After the Eurofighter Typhoon's loss to the Dassault Rafale in India's Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft Competition, U.K. officials have tried to pressure the Indian government to let them update their bid—judged to be more costly than the French offering—but to no avail. In Switzerland, Dassault tried a similar tactic in its loss to Saab's Gripen, although the Swiss Federal Council said last week it would not reopen the contest.
After stinging losses in high-profile fighter competitions in India and Japan, Boeing is refining its proposal and bid strategies as it focuses on several key international contests. The company is looking "to put some new things on the table," says Jeff Kohler, vice president for business development at Boeing Military Aircraft. The move comes after the F/A-18E/F was eliminated early in India and also lost in Japan to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
There is some urgency to the issue now that South Korea has opened a competition for 60 new fighters. Bids are due mid-year and a source selection is expected before November. The Brazilian government also is expected to make a fighter decision mid-year in its protracted contest.
Boeing is guarded about the changes it is making, but it is clear that attention is being paid to expanding partnership efforts with local companies overseas. And, the streamlining of technology release-related issues is being discussed with U.S. government agencies.
In South Korea, where Boeing plans to offer its F-15 Silent Eagle, the main competition will be Lockheed's F-35, although the defense ministry has recast the request for proposals; the internal weapon carriage requirement has been stricken in order to enable more bidders to enter the fray. Seoul wants to receive its first fighter by early 2016.
In Kohler's view, this gives the F-15 the edge over the rival F-35A. The theory is that a reduction in near-term U.S. purchases of JSFs makes it harder for Lockheed Martin to meet the schedule and it creates program uncertainty.
That's not the view in Fort Worth, however. There is spare capacity in the low-rate production lot eight, which is where the first fighters would need to be bought in 2014, says David M. Scott, Lockheed Martin's head of F-35 international customer engagement. The U.S. will be buying around 30 aircraft a year, with production already capable of handling 48. A JSF steering board will meet next month to once again review customers' purchase plans. If a need for additional tooling capacity is discerned, there would be ample time to arrange it, Scott argues.
South Korea also is a battleground for radar suppliers, with Raytheon tied to the Silent Eagle and Northrop Grumman to the F-35. The companies also are vying for a South Korean KF-16 radar upgrade program, with bids due next month.
Northrop Grumman's scalable agile beam (SABR), active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is competing against Raytheon's advanced combat radar (RACR). Taiwan is expected to follow soon after with a similar competition, and the U.S. Air Force is looking at an upgrade of 300 F-16s.
Lockheed Martin also is keeping its options open for markets where the F-35 cannot be sold or that are not ready to buy yet, unveiling an upgrade package in the guise of the F-16V. The key elements include an AESA radar—either RACR or SABR—an enhanced mission computer, cockpit upgrades, and data links to tie the fighter into an F-22 and F-35 network. The KF-16 upgrade is a target, suggests George Standridge, Lockheed Martin aeronautics vice president of business development. Singapore also is looking to upgrade its F-16s, although Standridge did not name the secretive customer.
The F-16V could also be offered as a new aircraft, but with the F-35 nearing, the chances are dimming; in reality, Lockheed is starting to see the end of the line—currently set to close in 2015 after the Iraqi air force's aircraft are delivered.
Line shutdown also is starting to be a concern for the F/A-18E/F, with the U.S. Navy competition nearing a close. The aircraft remains in competition against the Rafale and Gripen in Brazil, where an often-delayed type selection is due around mid-year. Rafale backers are suggesting that the Indian win gives them an edge, although U.S. officials downplay this, noting the recent visit by Brazil's defense minister to India was a mere coincidence of timing and that Brazil's President Dirma Rousseff will visit U.S. President Barack Obama before a source selection is made.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/02/20/AW_02_20_2012_p32-426408.xml&headline=South%20Korea%20Becomes%20Next%20Fighter%20Battleground
Lockheed plans F-35 ramp up; Ankara talks turkey
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 12:57 pm, Friday February 24 2012
F-35B test aircraft BF-2 flies with external weapons pylons for the first time, on February 22. (Lockheed Martin)
Lockheed Martin says it is preparing to dramatically increase flight testing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter this year, with plans including the first firing of live weapons.
In a progress report released today, Lockheed said the F-35 had conducted 114 flight tests for the year through to February 20, with plans for at least 1001 test flights during 2012 and further increases in subsequent years. Since the start of flight testing in 2006, F-35s have flown a total of 1704 times, Lockheed said.
Preparations for live firing are already underway, with test aircraft flying with external wing-mounted weapons in recent days as other aircraft begin "pit testing" of weapons by firing while parked on the ground.
Though the F-35 has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, Lockheed said the test program has reached a number of milestones this year, including first night flight and delivery of the first two production models of the F-35B STOVL variant to the US Marine Corps on January 11.
In other F-35 news, Turkey's defence minister said on Thursday that the country will buy 100 of the fighters for an estimated US$16 billion and expects to receive the first two aircraft by 2015.
A JSF program partner country, Turkey has long planned to purchase the jets to replace ageing F-4 and F-16 fighters, but rising costs have raised questions about the program in a number of countries, and the comments on Thursday were the first indication from Ankara of how much it expects the purchase to cost.
Interestingly, Australia's own total buy of 100 F-35s has been budgetted to cost A$16 billion.
http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/02/lockheed-plans-f-35-ramp-up-ankara-talks-turkey/
Plane makers in a battle over combat aircraft orders
David Black
Feb 24, 2012
There's a dogfight fight going on involving the makers of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world's arsenal.
Tomorrow's news tonightStay ahead of the competition and get the cream of the content from the business desk of The National direct to your inbox before it is published in print.
It is being fought over the contracts to supply the next generation of fighters to countries including Brazil and India.
Standing on the sidelines is the UAE, with a requirement for 60 medium multi-role combat aircraft by 2017, and a reputation for getting the best, for the cheapest deal when it comes to defence procurement.
Over the past few weeks one plane maker has emerged as a front runner - France's Dassault, with its tried and tested Rafale. But the competition is not lying down. Another European plane maker, EADS with the Typhoon; Sweden's SAAB Gripen; and the US giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin with their F15, F16 and F18 variants, are still in play.
The UAE is faced with sorting through their competing claims.
Up until the beginning of this month, Rafale was dead; killed by a damning statement in November by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces."Regrettably, Dassault seem unaware that all the diplomatic and political will in the world cannot overcome uncompetitive and unworkable commercial terms," he said.
Then, on January 31, Dassault announced it had been made preferred bidder for the contract to supply the Indian Air Force with 126 Rafales, with a potential second batch bringing the total to 206. The total order could be worth US$20 billion (Dh73.46bn). Suddenly there were stories that Dassault and the UAE were still talking and the French press were saying the French president Nicolas Sarkozy could be visiting Abu Dhabi next month to sign a deal. The UAE, meanwhile, is still keeping its own counsel.
The also-ran on the India deal was EADS' Typhoon.
Both aircraft had undergone stringent evaluations by the Indian Air Force, but the French had offered more technology transfer, and an arrangement whereby the first 18 aircraft would be built in France and the remainder at Hindustan Aerospace in Bangalore. They were also said to be cheaper.
Other possible customers for the Rafale stepped forward. From being a French venture that had failed to secure a single overseas customer and was in danger of having its production line shut down, Rafale was flying again.
Brazil's FX2 competition for 36 next-generation fighters worth $2.2bn, with potential follow-on orders for up to 120 aircraft, is up for grabs. Brazil was already talking to Dassault, EADS, Saab, Russia's Sukhoi and Boeing.
In Brazil, the Rafale had not been a front-runner, but after India's announcement the Brazilians suddenly wanted to know what was in Dassault's package.
Yes, Rafale was aircraft carrier-capable, important for the Brazilian Navy, but the price at $9bn was the highest among the bidders. Boeing's Super Hornet was also carrier-capable, and at $7.7bn, cheaper and Boeing's passenger aircraft division offered major offset possibilities for Brazil's commercial airliner industry. EADS, the maker of the Typhoon, offered similar benefits via Airbus. But fighter contracts are complex. On price, even if there is an initial loss, there will be an opportunity to catch up, upgrading aircraft to a next level, four or five years hence. And other strategic concerns can trump up-front commercial benefits.
India's decision to prefer the Rafale to the Typhoon was based on history.
The Indian Air Force is a satisfied user of French fighters, going back to the 1950s, and France has been a staunch ally.
During the 1999 Kargil campaign against Pakistan, India obtained French clearance to urgently adapt Israeli laser-guided bombs for its French-made Mirage fighters.
On the other hand, the 1998 US arms embargo after India's nuclear test has not been forgotten in New Delhi. France was the only western nation not to impose sanctions.
The weapons systems and sensors for the Rafale are mostly French-made, and thus not subject to a third-party embargo. The Typhoon is produced by a consortium of four nations, each with different foreign policies and different attitudes to arms exports.
One of them, Germany, has dithered over technology transfer with India on previous deals, and both German and Italian law prohibits deliveries of weapons and spares to warring nations. Also, Typhoon's air-to-air missiles include the US-made AIM-120 Amraam and the German-led IRIS-T, and its primary air-to-ground weapon is the US-made Paveway laser-guided bomb system.
Could India rely on those allies to keep her supplied, or could an India at war see its supply of weapons and spares shut down?
In Brazil, the newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo quoted the influential Workers' Party deputy leader Jose Genoino as saying: "France is always the better partner ... we don't know what is going to happen in 10 years so that we will be able to guarantee our spare parts. The USA, traditionally, does not transfer technology ... We want to seek the lowest price with the most technology transfer."
Meanwhile, the UAE is offering no hints. Typhoon is still in the running, and if Dassault is right, so is Rafale.
"It won't just be about performance," said one defence industry analyst, who declined to be named.
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/aviation/plane-makers-in-a-battle-over-combat-aircraft-orders#full
The end's in sight for the Super Hornet. Or is it?
By Philip Ewing Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 3:51 pm
Posted in Air, Naval
Boeing's F/A-18E and F Super Hornets, and their forebears, have been part of U.S. naval aviation for so long it's hard to imagine aircraft carriers without them. But under this month's DoD budget submission, the Navy would accept its last new Superbug in only three years.
Big B announced on Wednesday that it had completed early delivery of the Navy's second-to-last multi-year batch of Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers — 257 airplanes — and that it's on the glide slope to continue right on through into the final multi-year. That would involve another 66 Es and Fs and 58 Gs, "to be purchased through 2013." Under today's deals, including existing international orders, that would mean Boeing would deliver its last jet in 2015, said company spokesman Philip Carder.
But you don't get to be an aerospace titan by giving up that easily. A source with knowledge of the program tells DoDBuzz there could be opportunities for additional Super Hornets with the U.S. Navy and international customers, depending on the breaks.
It's very feasible: Boeing has made billions of dollars by exploiting delays in Lockheed's F-35, and DoD just pushed 179 of those outside its five-year defense plan. The Navy Department specifically dialed back its total order by 48 Cs and 21 Bs in this month's budget submission. Presumably, that will only worsen its standing "strike fighter shortfall." The exact numbers for that "gap" fluctuate with the phases of the moon, but the Navy said last year it was 65 airplanes. If the Navy really wants to keep 11 carriers and 10 air wings, it may need to order new jets to plug the gap.
Then there's the possibility for international orders: "The Super Hornet is currently involved in competitions in Brazil, Malaysia, and countries in the Middle East. In addition to these countries, Boeing and our U.S. government customer are having discussions with numerous international military institutions and governments," Carder said.
Lockheed Martin and the world's other big fighter vendors aren't just standing still, however. They will scrap for as many of these competitions as they can, and as India's selection of the Dassault Rafale showed, the Euro-firms can still play in the same league as the Americans.
F-35 boosters are working overtime to dispel the cloud that has surrounded their jet. We saw this week where the Royal Air Force's first test pilot loved the C, and Lockheed kept up the tempo on Thursday, announcing what it called a significant set of test milestones for so early in the year:
An Air Force A reached the F-35's highest altitude yet Jan. 9 when it cruised at 43,000 feet; an A did the first low approach with the Distributed Aperture System on Jan. 17; the A had its first night flight on Jan. 18; Secretary Panetta lifted the B's "probation" on Jan. 20 "almost a full year ahead of schedule," as Lockheed put it; the first test aircraft, AA-1, logged 2,500 flight hours Jan. 25; and an A flew with external weapons for the first time on Feb. 16 — though it didn't fire any.
Overall, Lockheed said, As have flown 46 times so far this year; Bs have flown 45 times; and Cs have flown 23 times. The numbers and statistics are what they are — Lockheed did not address the "software" issues Panetta mentioned several times last week to congressional lawmakers, or the C's apparent need for rework on its arrester hook.
Bottom line: Everyone involved is keenly aware that this is a battle over a shrinking pool of money. Boeing's argument is that the F-35 will never get here. Lockheed's is that it's right around the corner. The Super Hornet's survival or extinction — and possibly that of the companies involved here — will depend on the firms' ability to make policymakers believe one pitch and not the other.
Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/the-ends-in-sight-for-the-super-hornet-or-is-it/#ixzz1nHa65nAG
DoDBuzz.com
Turkije en Australie hebben bijna hetzelfde budget voor 100 F-35
Turkije : $ 16 miljard USdollar
Australie : $ 16 miljard Adollar
verhouding : US dollar met A dollar is 1 : 0,93
Australie heeft een budget van $ 14,88 miljard dollar
Dat betekend dat Turkije $ 160 miljoen per toestel rekend en Australie $ 148,8 miljoen per toestel
Maar de vraag met deze bedragen is of de ondehoudskosten/exploitatiekosten voor de komende 30 jaar ook in dit budget zit ?
Zo ja, dan moet je bij het Nederlandse budget voor aankoop € 4,4 miljard ook de 10 miljard erbij tellen, dus een budget van € 14,4 miljatd Euro. Dit is in USdollars = $ 19,15 miljard USdollar
Maar dit geloof ik niet, Nederland heeft altijd gerekend met aankoop € 55 miljoen per toestel.
Dus 85 toestellen x € 55 miljoen = € 4,675 miljard
Photo release: F-35 test team completes first external stores testing on F-35B
Over an Atlantic test range, Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin flies F-35B test aircraft BF-2 with external weapons pylons for the first time Feb. 22. (Photo courtesy Lockheed Martin)
Feb 23, 2012
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Over an Atlantic test range, Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin flies F-35B test aircraft BF-2 with external weapons pylons for the first time Feb. 22. The test measured flying qualities with external pylons, inert AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and centerline 25 mm gun pod. Significant weapons testing for the F-35B and F-35C variants is scheduled for 2012, including fit checks, captive carriage, pit drop and aerial drop tests.
The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter for the U.S. Marine Corps, capable of short take-offs and vertical landings for use on amphibious ships or expeditionary airfields to provide air power to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. The F-35B is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet. (Photo courtesy Lockheed Martin)
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4923
Lockheed Readies Aggressive F-35 Test Schedule
ORLANDO, Fla. — Lockheed Martin is preparing to ramp up flight testing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next year, including the first release of live weapons.
The multinational, tri-service program has put together a robust flight test schedule for 2012, according to Alan Norman, Lockheed's F-35 chief test pilot. The program is expected to conduct more than 10,000 test points per year in 2013, 2014 and 2015, Norman said at a Feb. 23 briefing at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here.
In addition to test jets that are already flying, operational test aircraft are expected to arrive at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., by the end of the year, Norman said.
At the same time, the program is preparing for the first live-fire test weapons from an F-35.
The program has started "pit testing" of weapons, or releasing weapons while the aircraft is parked on the ground. A Marine Corps F-35B has participated in these tests and similar trials will be conducted on an Air Force jet soon.
In recent weeks, F-35 aircraft have been flying with external, wing-mounted weapons, clearing the envelope for eventual live fire tests.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120223/DEFREG02/302230010/AFA-Lockheed-Readies-Aggressive-F-35-Test-Schedule?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Indian fighter jet crashes
Feb 24, 2012, 12:04 GMT
New Delhi - A Mirage 2000 combat aircraft crashed in central India during a training exercise Friday, officials said.
Both pilots ejected before the crash, and had been admitted to hospital, Air Force spokesman Gerard Galway said.
The aircraft crashed soon after taking off from an air base near Gwalior in the central state of Madhya Pradesh, he said.
Thirty of India's fighter jets have crashed since 2008, according to the Defence Ministry. Most were part of the fleet of 51 Russian-made MiG aircraft.
The Mirage manufactured by France's Dassault Aviation SA was inducted into the force in the mid-1980s. Four crashed in 2004, but Galway said the French jets had a fairly good track record in the past five years.
The Air Force is in the process of phasing out older aircraft and upgrading its fleet.
In January, Dassault won a multi-billion-dollar contract to supply India with 126 Rafale fighter jets. The deal is in the process of being finalized.
The Air Force in 2011 also signed two contracts worth over 3.2 billion dollars with Dassault and Thales SA, another French company specialized in missile guidance systems, to upgrade the Mirage 2000.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/news/article_1692662.php/Indian-fighter-jet-crashes
JSF Weapons Tests Set; F-35A Flight Clearance "Within Weeks"
By Colin Clark
Published: February 24, 2012
ORLANDO: It is the most expensive conventional weapon system ever built. At least one government estimate puts the total cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at roughly $1 trillion over the presumed 50-year life of the aircraft.
The three F-35's variants -- one each for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines -- have been dogged by technical problems, management problems and cost problems for much of the last five years, as is not uncommon for highly advanced technology programs.
But this year, may -- we repeat may -- see the F-35 begin the hard climb toward, if not respectability, positive results on cost, schedule and performance. Note that the Air Force's head of training, Gen. Edward Rice said yesterday that the service's planes should be cleared for flight within "a matter of weeks." That doesn't mean they will actually begin flying right away -- that could be months away because the service must ensure that the planes can handle enough sorties -- get into the air -- often enough to sustain the required training.
As part of that training, the Air Force will test the entire F-35A supply chain, ensuring the highly computerized system works and that the parts suppliers can keep up with the demand and the Air Force can effectively manage the supply chain.
"We have to make sure that the system matures itself such that we can sustain a sortie rate that will allow us to begin training and I don't know how long that will take. It will take as long as it takes, the good news is that I'm not being pushed by anybody or anything at this point,"
Rice told reporters yesterday afternoon.
Lockheed Martin's chief test pilot for the F-35 told reporters that the plane should begin weapons release tests by the end of the year. That doesn't mean they'll be rootin', tootin', shootin' bombs and missiles but they will be firing and dropping test weapons. And that sort of visible progress can only help improve the F-35's image and assessment in the eyes of both the Pentagon and the public.
http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/24/jsf-weapons-tests-set-f-35a-flight-clearance-within-weeks/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/02/2012 | 16:16 uur
Lockheed Martin's chief test pilot for the F-35 told reporters that the plane should begin weapons release tests by the end of the year. That doesn't mean they'll be rootin', tootin', shootin' bombs and missiles but they will be firing and dropping test weapons. And that sort of visible progress can only help improve the F-35's image and assessment in the eyes of both the Pentagon and the public.
ahhaaaa, dus dat is de reden
JSF Chief Engineer: F-35 Military Flight Release To Happen Soon
Feb. 24, 2012 - 05:57PM
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
The Pentagon's stealthy tri-service F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is making progress with a military flight release expected soon, the program's chief engineer said. But software development and problems with the jet's helmet mounted display are still major challenges.
"Yesterday, the Air Force had their airworthiness board for the LRIP-2 [low-rate initial production] jets that are at Eglin [Air Force Base, Fla.]," Doug Ebersole said during a Feb. 24 interview with Defense News. "Although we have not yet received the military flight release ... yesterday at the airworthiness board we got certification of TACC [Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria] compliance — that's really the output of that airworthiness board."
That means that the Air Force is satisfied that its version of the aircraft, the F-35A, is safe to fly. It also means that the Air Force understands and accepts the risks where there are gaps in the jet's compliance with service airworthiness regulations, Ebersole said. He said he can't predict when the Air Force will issue a formal military flight release, but that it should happen soon.
The U.S. Navy's Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has also cleared its LRIP-2 jets to operate at Fort Worth, where the planes are built, but the sea service requires an additional independent safety audit before fleet pilots are allowed to fly the aircraft, Ebersole said. "We expect that to happen in the mid-to-late March timeframe. Probably late March," he said.
If that happens, it would mean that Marine pilots, who fall under NAVAIR's purview, will be able to start training along side their Air Force brethren in their F-35B model jets next month.
Initially, qualified F-35 test pilots will fly local area operations to exercise the aircraft and the maintenance setup at the Florida base. Operational pilots will be able to start training after that is completed.
Flights at Eglin will be starting in no small part due to the performance of the F-35A, which has had no major developmental hiccups. "When I look at the CTOL [conventional take-off and landing], it's actually performing pretty well," Ebersole said. "There is nothing like the tailhook or what we worked through last year with the STOVL [short take-off vertical landing]," he said. The jet is progressing well in tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and has started to perform engine restarts in flight. Already the Edwards test pilots have performed seven such engine re-lights, Ebersole said.
The Navy's C-model is also performing well with the exception the recently discovered tailhook problem. "The tailhook is the only thing that really has come to light," Ebersole said.
The likewise, the F-35B is also progressing well, he said. But two major issues worry Ebersole.
"I worry about software development — meeting the incremental block deliveries, and the other key one right now is the helmet," he said. "But we've made good progress on the helmet in the last year."
A solution to the problem of jittery images being displayed to the pilot is being tested right now on an F-35 during ground taxi runs. It will be tested in flight soon, Ebersole said. Likewise, the concern with latency — where the display lags behind the pilot's head movements — has been mitigated, he said. Meanwhile, ICE-11 night-vision cameras should resolve the problems with visual acuity.
"A year ago, I had much more concern on the helmet than what I have today," he said.
The software is a huge chunk of the F-35 developmental effort, but while the program is fairly good at catching problems, it needs to happen faster, Ebersole said. The program is working to add better tools and refine to its processes to fix that.
"We need to find them earlier," Ebersole said. "We tend to find them too late in the development cycle."
He praised plane-maker Lockheed Martin for adding a vice-president in charge of F-35 software development.
One Navy source had raised concerns that beyond the Block 3 software needed for initial operational capability, the current avionics architecture would not be able support the level inoperability and information sharing that the U.S. services require — which would necessitate a redesign of the avionics.
Ebersole countered that while there are candidate lists of capabilities that the U.S. services, foreign partners and JSF program are looking at, there is no definitive set of attributes that might be incorporated into a F-35 Block 4 configuration. "We don't finalize what that list of Block 4 candidates are going to be until the March of '13."
But Ebersole added, all of the capabilities that are being considered for the F-35 in Block 4 fit into the jet's existing avionics architecture. Some of those capabilities will require hardware changes however, he said. "We don't see any show-stoppers for the candidates as they stand today."
The F-35 program plans to continually refresh the jet's technology, Ebersole said. The current plan is to upgrade the software every two years, while the software and hardware would be upgraded every four years.
Other problems such as the tailhook, fuel-dump system, and heat from the jet's afterburner damaging the tail surfaces at supersonic flights are relatively simple to solve, Ebersole said. As the program goes forward, there will be more problems that come to the surface, but that is case with any aircraft development program.
But to make sure that those problems are addressed with rigor, Ebersole — who started at the F-35 program a day before current program manager Vice Adm. David Venlet — said he is trying to instill a stronger sense of discipline into the engineering behind the program.
Ebersole said that the Joint Program Office (JPO) has shifted to an engineering process that is modeled along the lines of NAVAIR. Each variant now has a "class desk" responsible for that version of the jet, he said, and their team has set up a Lightning support desk to help operational units that are beginning to standup — for example the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin.
Under Venlet's direction, the F-35 engineering team has returned to the basics of systems engineering and has instituted formal review processes similar to NAVAIR, Ebersole said. Without these formal processes, problems can be missed as was aptly demonstrated by the F-35C tailhook design.
"We didn't go start tying to go redesign it. The first thing we did is we went back and audited all of the requirements, Ebersole said. "We actually had a system requirements review ... and what we found was that some requirements had been missed."
While in years past, the JPO did do some form of review, but those reviews were not conducted with the level of formality as they are done now. "I think it was a gap," Ebersole said.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120224/DEFREG02/302240004/JSF-Chief-Engineer-F-35-Military-Flight-Release-Happen-Soon?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Rafale Selected... Now Consolidation
D. Raghunandan, Newsclick, Feb. 25, 2012
The much awaited announcement of the winner in India's medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) acquisition was finally made a fortnight ago, with the Rafale fighter from Dassault Aviation of France taking away the coveted deal.
Two aircraft, the Rafale and the Eurofighter from a European consortium, had earlier been down-selected from the six short-listed contenders after extensive evaluations and field trials. The final round was to be decided on the basis of total costs involving detailed calculations covering the estimated 40 years life of the aircraft including running costs, spares, maintenance and technical support. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) declaration in fact conveyed that the Dassault Rafale had emerged as L1 or the lowest cost bidder. The last remaining step now is the haggling over the final price and other details of the contract itself. Price is expected to go up considerably from the originally cited $10 billion, with some quarters suggesting ti could go as high as $15 billion or even $20 billion.
Given the huge value of the deal, and the global interest in it, we will of course examine the selection itself and the lessons learned from the long process. A fair amount of discussion, including in these columns, has already taken place on the technical merits or drawbacks of the contending aircraft. This article will therefore also locate the Rafale acquisition in, and take stock of, the entire raft of recent acquisitions and upgrades, and those on the anvil, that together make up the bulk of the modernization of the Indian Air Force as projected to meet security needs over the next three or more decades. And finally, we will also look at perhaps the most important aspect, but unfortunately the least studied or commented upon by analysts, namely how does India propose to absorb these new technologies and build indigenous capability on the back of these expensive acquisitions.
Rafale wins The nitty gritty of the complex evaluation process, field trials, lifetime costs and the comparative assessment of the MMRCA contenders are of course not available in the public domain. It is however known that the MoD has shared the salient aspects with the two finalists to underline the fairness and transparency of the process, and so as to ward off precisely the kind of recrimination and charges of bias or worse that emanated from the losing parties at least in the immediate aftermath of the announcement.
It is believed that the IAF was given far more primacy in the decision-making process than in most earlier deals. The aircraft performance and how the user saw it fitting into not only its strategic and tactical plans but also its fleet operations and maintenance would therefore have had substantial weightage. It is believed that around 640 parameters were used in the comparative evaluation. Value for money would undoubtedly have been a major consideration. But it can only be part of the contemporary mythology of tendering that in the final round, both contenders were on equal footing as to performance and compatibility with IAF fleet requirements, with only price being thereafter the only determining factor.
The MMRCA acquisition has been in the table for a long time and, understandably, the Air Force requirements have also undergone modification over this period, keeping in mind its evolving defence strategy, as well as the quite rapid obsolescence of large parts of its existing fleet and the various other acquisitions and upgrades undertaken during the interim. As noted in an earlier piece, the very definition of the aircraft to be acquired shifted from a lightweight fighter to a medium-weight aircraft (the second M in the MMRCA being a later addition) with substantial attack capability.
Both the contenders, as is the preference these days, are very capable both in aerial combat and in ground attack roles. However, the Eurofighter is believed to be optimized for air superiority whereas the Rafale, with somewhat longer range and ability to carry more armaments (including, the French are believed to have stressed, nuclear weapons), is thought to have better fitted the IAF's evolving requirements. While some of the 6 short-listed aircraft were probably knocked out very early for being too light but continued in the tender more as a formality, the Rafale was once thought to be too heavy.
Several commentators consider the Eurofighter to be among the best contemporary aerial combat aircraft, excluding the US F-22 Raptor which is a class apart but too advanced for foreseeable threats and far too expensive even for the US which has discontinued further procurement. On the other hand, India already has the Sukhoi SU-30 MkI whose performance in the Indradhanush exercises against all US and European fighters must surely put it there among the best. India has recently ordered a further 64 Su-30 MkIs over and above its earlier order of 140 aircraft most of which are to be made in India, so clearly that slot is taken. If India wanted more aerial fighters, it would make far greater sense to simply buy more Su-30s than to go in for new Eurofighters. Besides, the Rafale also has a ready carrier-based version.
India's attack fleet though is quite severely depleted with the imminent phasing away of the several decades old Jaguars from Britain. India has recently decided to upgrade its Mirage 2000s which performed very well in the Himalayan cold mountainous terrain during the Kargil conflict. The Rafale with its longer range and modern technology provides excellent complementarity with the Mirage fleet, further augmented by the fact that both aircraft are from Dassault of France which is also executing the Mirage upgrade.
On the other hand, the Eurofighter would have been a completely new type of aircraft for the IAF, requiring all-new support systems. There may also have been some questions about Its AESA radar which is still under development.
But price must have been a very major factor indeed. Some sources have said that the Eurofighter was a good 20 percent more expensive than the Rafale in life-cycle terms. Nothing suggests that the Eurofighter has so much better performance or capabilities as to outweigh the cost disadvantage.
France is also said to have offered, and guaranteed its government's backing for, significant transfer of technology to India. This has two dimensions, both very important: first, extent of indigenization and control especially over vital technologies in times of conflict, and second cost. It is quite likely that the Rafale scored heavily over the Eurofighter on both counts.
Reliability of Partners And thereby hangs quite a story, too involved to go into much detail here, but some broad pointers would help readers grasp the bigger picture.
Britain and to a lesser extent Germany have made much of what they perceive to be "extraneous" geo-strategic considerations and an Indian tilt towards France because of the latter's clout as a Security Council member whereas a deal with an amorphous European consortium would not have given India similar diplomatic dividends. If that had been the main criteria, the US contractors should have won the deal hands down. With the US too complaining bitterly about Indian 'ingratitude," in effect wanting India to use extraneous considerations to decide on a crucial military acquisition, Britain too conveyed it expected India to be swayed by the aid Britain was giving. Most of this can be put down to sour grapes, but the issue of "extraneous factors" deserves some consideration.
In military aviation today, and to a smaller degree in the civilian sector too, US companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin are too big and powerful for most rivals from other countries. In Europe, the response has been through consortia such as the Airbus manufacturer EADS and project-specific consortia such as with the Eurofighter which brought together British, German, Spanish and Italian firms. In the civil sector Airbus is commercially on a par with the American giant Boeing and has solidified its reputation as a reliable supplier, also encouraging sub-contracting partnerships in other countries, and provider of support services. The same obviously cannot be said of the more temporary consortia for military aircraft.
Today Russia and France are the two remaining non-US nationally-based military aviation industries covering design and manufacture of airframes, engines, armaments, avionics and systems integration, with Britain having increasingly turned towards the consortium approach. The British government was deeply hurt that the Eurofighter lost out but then the Eurofighter is not British.
Further, while India has had a long history of collaboration with Russia, France and Britain in military aviation, it appears that some lessons have distilled out from accumulated experience. Despite the recent strategic warming of defence relations between India and the US, India and especially its armed forces appear be still extremely doubtful about US reliability as a supplier while its possible support role especially during times of conflict, which is of course crucial for armed services, is entirely untested. On the other hand, Russian reliability has been time-tested even though its reputation for reliability has suffered of late mostly due to declining capacity in post-Soviet Russia and to commercial disputes arising from both nations redefining their relationship in the new context.
Less well-known to the Indian public, India and France have had a long and fruitful collaborative relationship in fighter aircraft and helicopters, going back to the Dassault ouragan in the 1950s. France was the only Western country not to impose sanctions after Pokhran-II while the US withdrawal of support from crucial elements of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) set back the developmental efforts by several years and continues to deeply rankle the military and the defence R&D establishment. France was also very forthcoming during the Kargil conflict with spares and support including an urgently needed integration of Russian and Israeli avionics with the Mirage 2000 to enable it to play the vital role it did in precision targeting of infiltration infrastructure in intractable positions in the heights.
Britain of course has been an equally long-term partner with an enviable role in collaborations for the redoubtable Gnat fighter of the '60s through the Jaguar and now the hawk trainers. Yet, for all this deep partnership, the British have been prone to cause problems, withholding or delaying assistance for commercial or other reasons. It took considerable persuasion by India to resolve several difficulties with the Hawk Trainers especially as regards technology transfer for license manufacture in India.
In terms of long-term defence collaboration, therefore, it seems the IAF has decided to throw in its lot other with France and Russia for mainline fighters while going with manufacturers from Britain and even the US for support and specialized-role aircraft required in smaller numbers.
If so, with a main combat aircraft fleet comprising the Mirage 2000 and Rafale from France, the Sukhoi-30 MkI and the futuristic 5th generation fighter to be co-developed with Russia and inducted in the mid or late 2020s, apart from the indigenous LCA, it would seem that India has all that it needs for the coming three to four decades. After the expensive Rafale acquisition, and considerably more expenditure to come on the LCA, new Sukhois, Mirage upgrades and the Russo-Indian G5 fighter, it is time India drew the line.
Whither industrial capability? As argued vigorously in these columns, these acquisitions and the technology transfer leveraged through the offsets clause, should be purposively and strategically conceptualized, planned and executed in a manner such as to ensure Indian firms acquire self-reliant autonomous capability not only in manufacture but also in design-development for the next generation. There is however no sign that this is happening. Offsets will indeed come about, sub-contracted works would be taken up by both state sector and new private sector entrants into the defence industry. But how much of this will translate into solid and lasting capability?
There is much to be said for the much greater thoroughness and transparency that has characterized the MMRCA acquisition than in earlier contracts. But there is far less transparency in the matter of offsets. Which firms will obtain how much offsets work for the MMRCA contract? Who will decide this and how? Will these firms have the requisite experience, past track record and future vision for a strategic integration with India's high-tech engineering capability and infrastructure? Or will we see, as in the telecom scam, real-estate companies setting up greenfield fabrication units just to make some quick money and then turn to other more profitable ventures? There is much scope for cronyism in the offsets mechanism. The political leadership in India needs to ensure that these expensive and high technology acquisitions do not simply yield costly machines dependent on equally costly external support services but are converted into long-term investments in indigenous capability and industrial strength in advanced technology.
http://newsclick.in/india/rafale-selected%E2%80%A6-now-consolidation
Lockheed Martin to announce new F-16 Block 50 variant
Although the design will be based on the Block 50 model, it will incorporate newer features that have, so far, only been included in the Block 60 Desert Falcons flown by the UAE Air Force and were part of the F-16IN Super Viper for the Indian Air Force tender for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft.
US defense company, Lockheed Martin, is to announce a new variant of the F-16. StratPost understands that although the design will be based on the Block 50 model, it will incorporate newer features that have, so far, only been included in the Block 60 Desert Falcons flown by the UAE Air Force and were part of the company's offer of the F-16IN Super Viper for the Indian Air Force (IAF) tender for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).
The new variant will incorporate an AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar, which is currently only built into the model operated by the UAE, as well as advanced electronic warfare, processing and communication abilities.
This appears to dovetail into the emerging requirement to upgrade United States Air Force (USAF) F-16 aircraft in service, a USD 2.8 billion plan announced earlier this month by USAF Secretary, Michael Donley, under which 350 aircraft would be retroactively fitted with an AESA radar. This upgrade is part of an effort at building capability with existing assets after the US slowed the production of F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft in an attempt to slash around USD 500 billion from its defense budget.
Lockheed Martin has decided to offer the new variant on the basis of requirements cited by 'four to five customers', according to one source, who did not wish to be quoted.
The company is expected to announce this variant at the Singapore Air Show on Wednesday. The F-16 is currently in service in 25 countries, including Singapore and Pakistan. Iraq will be the 26th operator of the aircraft
http://www.stratpost.com/lockheed-martin-to-announce-new-f-16-block-50-variant
Wat is het verschil tussen Block 50 en Block 60 als men de AESA (Active Elektronisch Scanned Array) radar ook in Block 50 stopt?
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f16aesaradar/index.html
Dat ze geen geld aan de Emirati's hoeven te geven voor elk verkocht toestel ;)?
Citaat van: IPA NG op 26/02/2012 | 12:22 uur
Dat ze geen geld aan de Emirati's hoeven te geven voor elk verkocht toestel ;)?
Daar zat ik ook aan te denken.
Britain 'may struggle to pay for new fighter jets'
Britain's Armed Forces may be unable to afford all the new fighter jets they want as American defence cuts and European austerity measures push up the aircraft's price.
By Raf Sanchez, in Washington
9:30PM GMT 26 Feb 2012
With the US military delaying purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and Italy slashing its order by more than a third, the Ministry of Defence's bill for each of the aircraft is set to rise sharply.
Experts warned that the higher prices are likely to mean Britain can afford fewer of the multi-role warplanes, which are due to replace the Harrier on the Navy's new aircraft carrier by 2020.
The rising cost of the JSF will add to the controversy around Britain's aircraft carrier capabilities. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review retired the Navy's existing carriers, leaving the UK without a working carrier for a decade.
The JSF, also known as the F-35, is being built by American weapons giant Lockheed Martin as part of an international programme led by the US but partly funded by Britain and seven other 'partner nations'.
The arrangement shares the enormous cost of developing the world's most advanced aircraft but also leaves Britain dependent on large orders from other countries to keep price down.
Britain is due to place orders for one squadron, around 20 aircraft, next year but will settle on the final number of planes to be bought until in 2015.
Lockheed has admitted that the government is likely to pay even more than the $90 million (£57 million) currently projected as the cost of a single aircraft but could not give an exact figure.
As part of a drive to reduce America's annual military budget, the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it was delaying purchasing 179 aircraft until after 2017, saving the US $15 billion (£10 billion) over the next five years.
The US was followed almost immediately by Italy, which said that under new austerity measures it could no longer afford the 131 jets it agreed to buy and was reducing its order to just 90. Both Australia and Canada have also signalled they may delay or cut their purchases.
Speaking before Italy announced its reduced order, Lockheed's executive vice-president Tom Burbage said that the American delay would push up prices for all nations. "It will raise the overall average cost of the total procurement of all the aeroplanes bought," he said.
Barry Pavel, a former Senior Director for Defence Policy at the White House's National Security Council, told the Daily Telegraph that the rising costs would likely reduce the number of aircraft Britain eventually buys.
"Britain, along with some other European nations, has a constrained defence budget and as costs go up it seems likely it won't be able to afford as many planes," he said.
"It's going to be really tough for Britain as economic projections remain negative. The government is going to have to cut public spending again and that will cause them to reassess not only the JSF but their broader defence programme."
Next month the Canadian embassy in Washington will host a meeting of the eight partner nations, where defence attachés are expected to voice their respective governments' growing alarm over the programme's cost. A formal summit of all the countries involved will take place in Australia in mid-March.
A spokeswoman said the MoD would not comment on prices until it had confirmed its first order next year.
*"The MoD is taking delivery of our first Joint Strike Fighters for test and evaluation purposes this year and is committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF. Our plans remain on track to have a new carrier strike capability from around 2020," she said.
Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, met with his American counterpart Leon Panetta in Washington last month, where he raised concerns that the jets would be ready in time for a 2020 deployment on HMS Prince of Wales, Britain's new aircraft carrier.
The Navy's first order will be made next year and the aircraft are expected to be operational by 2016. British pilots will train jointly with the US Navy before being posted aboard the carrier.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9091980/Britain-may-struggle-to-pay-for-new-fighter-jets.html
Lifetime cost to run F-35 fighter: about $1 trillion
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:35pm EST
(Reuters) - The Pentagon estimates that it will still cost about $1 trillion to operate a fleet of 2,443 F-35 fighter jets over the next 50 years, but is continuing to analyze how to drive that staggering sum down, a top U.S. Marine Corps official told Reuters.
Lieutenant General Terry Robling, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, said top defense officials agreed last week to continue low-rate production of the new radar-evading warplane built by Lockheed Martin Corp, while keeping a close eye on the cost of maintaining and operating the new jets.
"Everybody was on board with ... the program," Robling told Reuters aboard a military aircraft on Saturday after a ceremony involving three F-35B jets at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. "We understand the costs are high. We understand that we need to do something, we need to make decisions down the road."
Robling said the cost estimate would likely decline in coming years as more jets were built and flown, reducing the reliance on comparison data from other aircraft programs.
Unless the estimates do come down substantially, the Pentagon may have to decide to buy fewer airplanes, reduce the number of anticipated flight hours, or skip adding certain capabilities to the plane, Robling said, although he noted that decision point could still be five to 10 years off.
The estimated cost just to develop and buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is around $382 billion, but that number could increase somewhat when the Pentagon reports the cost of its major acquisition programs to Congress next month.
Defense officials say the cost of the program will increase somewhat since the Pentagon is postponing orders for 179 planes for five years to allow more testing and limit the number of costly retrofits to already produced planes.
The delays and budget pressures at home are prompting eight international partners who are helping fund the F-35 development -- Britain, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Canada and the Netherlands -- to rethink their orders as well.
ESTIMATES BASED ON LOW FLIGHT HOURS, OTHER AIRPLANES
"It's an unaffordable program at the numbers that we're using," Robling said. But he cautioned that the F-35 was still in development and much of the reliability data was preliminary, based on just 2,500 hours of flight time on the new warplane.
For instance, the cost of operating the V-22 Osprey had come down about 30 percent since it was first fielded, Robling said. Aggressive oversight, increased reliability of parts and different flying guidelines had helped cut the cost from $12,000 per flight hour to a record low of $8,300 last month, he noted.
"We'll learn that on JSF as we go. We'll expect those costs to come down," he said, adding that maintainers would never accept the low readiness rates now factored in for the F-35.
"We're going to get better, we'll drive cost out and we'll drive readiness up. But it won't happen until we start buying the airplane" in greater numbers, Robling said.
The Pentagon's chief weapons tester said in a December report that the mean flight hours between critical failures on the Air Force version of the F-35 were about 2.65 hours, but Robling said that number was "ridiculous" since it was based on the low number of hours flown during developmental testing.
WORK ON LOWERING SUSTAINMENT COSTS ONGOING
Robling said the F-35 was also the first big Pentagon weapons program to be evaluated using a 50-year lifetime cost estimate -- about 20 years longer than most programs -- which made the program seem artificially more expensive.
Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute has said that using the same methodology over the same period, the current fleet of tactical fighters such as the F-16 and F/A-18s would require spending $4 trillion on operation and sustainment.
The Pentagon estimates it will cost about $30,000 per hour to operate the F-35, in large part due to the cost of fuel.
The Pentagon's high-level Defense Acquisition Board met last week to review the F-35 program and its sustainment cost, but the F-35 program office is still working on a comprehensive review of the operation and maintenance costs, Robling said.
Air Force acquisition chief David Van Buren told a conference earlier this month that the F-35 program office was continuing to examine the plane's sustainment cost, and the trend was "moving in the right direction."
Lockheed officials chafe at the Pentagon's sustainment cost figure, arguing that it does not account for significant differences between the fifth-generation fighter and earlier planes. For instance, the F-35 is built of composite materials that should sharply lower maintenance bills by eliminating the labor-intensive, anti-corrosion work.
Another key difference is the huge number of sensors and computers on board, which give maintainers far greater insight into any problems that might arise.
Decisions on the program's longer-term future and the expected total procurement amount were still a long way off, Robling said. "Over the next couple of years, maybe even five years, 10 years, I think the program will mature to the point where we go, 'OK, this is where we're going to stop.' Or we'll decide to continue because we see them getting the price lower."
The high cost of retrofitting already produced planes if problems arose during development testing, which is continuing concurrently with low-rate production, should fall away in 2015 or 2016, Roblin said, removing additional cost from the program.
Roblin said Lockheed and the Pentagon's F-35 program office had made great strides in better managing the program over the past two years. "They've driven out a lot of cost, and they're still finding ways to do that."
(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/26/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSTRE81P0RV20120226
Top military pilots grounded by F-35 mess
Questions about safety, cost overruns raise doubts about the entire program's feasibility
By MELISSA NELSON, Associated Press
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The best fighter pilots from the Air Force, Marines and Navy arrived in the Florida Panhandle last year to learn to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive, most advanced weapons program in U.S. history. They are still waiting.
Concerns about the stealth jets' safety, cost overruns and questions about the entire program's feasibility have delayed the training and left about 35 pilots mostly outside the cockpit. The most the pilots do with the nine F-35s at Eglin Air Force Base is occasionally taxi them and fire up the engines. Otherwise their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets. Only a handful of test pilots get to fly the F-35s.
"The most-frustrated pilot is one who isn't flying at all," said Marine Col. Arthur Tomassetti, vice commander of the fighter wing and a former test pilot for the F-35 prototype.
Built by Lockheed Martin under a 2001 contract, the F-35 is supposed to replace Cold War-era aircraft such as the Air Force's F-16 fighter and the Navy's and Marines' F/A-18 Hornet. It would also be sold to many NATO countries and other U.S. allies.
Costing between $65 million and $100 million each, depending on the version, the F-35 is described as a generational leap from older fighter jets. A single-seat aircraft, it can fly at about 1,050 mph and, officials say, fight both air-to-air and air-to-ground significantly better than its predecessors.
One version can land on an aircraft carrier while another can hover, landing on and taking off from a helicopter carrier. It carries more fuel and more ordnance internally than older fighter jets, allowing it to maintain stealth, and has the latest onboard computer systems, allowing the pilot to control the plane and communicate with other aircraft and interact with ground commanders like never before.
"From a flying perspective, what we call the stick and rudder is the same for any platform, but when you integrate the sensors, the pilot has the capability to make much better decisions and be much more precise," said Air Force Col Andrew Toth, the training wing's commander. His name adorns one of the school's F-35s.
And because it is to be used by all three branches of the U.S. military that fly fighter jets and by U.S. allies, training and maintenance could be handled jointly. That's intended to save money compared to having separate, parallel maintenance and training groups in each force.
But just as the program appeared to be taking off, it was grounded over a variety of concerns. They range from improperly installed parachutes under the pilots' ejector seats, to worries at the Pentagon that there has not been enough testing of the jets, to ongoing concerns by some in Congress that the entire F-35 program is too expensive. Its projected cost has jumped from $233 billion to an estimated $385 billion, including development. Forty-three F-35s have been built and another 2,443 have been ordered by the Pentagon.
'Ready to train'
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said earlier this month that the Air Force wasn't ready to start student flights at Eglin.
"The plan will be to start flying, not training, but to start flying with test-qualified aviators initially to do what we call local area orientation," he said. "We will build to a threshold, which will allow the training leadership in the Air Force to declare 'ready to train' with other than test-qualified aviators."
Questions about funding, slow production of the aircraft and uncertainty about overall strategy have contributed to inefficiencies in money and manpower, said Baker Spring, a defense analyst with the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.
Spring said the complicated way the Pentagon budgeting process worked has trickled down to the pilots at the school.
"You have people out there twiddling their thumbs waiting for planes. This contributes to the high unit costs," Spring said.
All of this has left the first batch of would-be F-35 pilots in training limbo. This is supposed to be the first time fighter pilots from all three branches train together and they are looking forward to both the competition and learning from each other.
"All of the pilots here are incredibly talented, hand-picked, board-selected, they are the best of the best and the opportunity to come here is and fly the F-35 as a Marine operator is truly the career opportunity of a lifetime," said Marine Lt. Col. Jim Wellons said at ceremony for the jet at Eglin last year.
"There is so much that we can learn from each other. We in the Marine Corps are focused on supporting the Marine on the ground, even though we have an airplane that can perform air combat and the full range of tactical missions. The Air Force fighter community also supports the man on the ground but they have a significant strategic focus. The Navy is very focused on shipboard operations, so we all have our different strengths and probably weaknesses."
When the school becomes fully operational, dozens of pilots and hundreds of F-35 crew members will funnel through Eglin each year.
"Right now it looks like a large building out here with empty hallways, but we are going to have 900 students soon," said the Marine's Col. Tomassetti during a tour of the largely empty school last year.
Tomassetti said this month that the school continues to wait for a "ready to train" order from the Pentagon. The colonel said he and the Marines he commands are eager to fly new jet.
"We do have F-16s on loan and some of our pilots are going off station to fly other jets. They are flying and they understand that this is part of standing up a new program," he said.
When the Pentagon decides to allow the Eglin planes to fly is anyone's guess, said J.R. McDonald, Lockheed's Eglin-based vice president of corporate domestic business development.
"I think we are close but it is a U.S. government decision and the government enterprise will decide when it decides. The (fighter wing) just has to patient because they have done everything they can do," he said.
"I've stopped making predictions."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46539898/ns/us_news-security/#
Israel plans for second F-35 squadron
Published: Feb. 27, 2012 at 1:48 PM
TEL AVIV, Israel, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- Despite deepening defense budget cuts, the Israeli air force is reported to be moving toward ordering a second squadron of 20 F-35 stealth fighters from Lockheed Martin, possibly as early as this year.
The first 20 Joint Strike Fighters were ordered in October 2010 at a cost of $2.75 billion.
Israel ultimately wants to acquire 75 F-35s, to replace Lockheed Martin's F-16I and Boeing's F-15I to form the spearhead of its strategic air power, particularly in terms of long-range strikes against Iran.
But the cost in the current budgetary climate is likely to be prohibitive, particularly as Israel's military is focused on developing a range of anti-missile defense systems to confront an anticipated massive bombardment that could go on for weeks with potentially catastrophic results.
"According to initial plans, the (air force) would place the order for the second squadron in late 2012-early 2013 and begin receiving the planes in 2020," The Jerusalem Post reported.
"It is possible, however, that the United States would attach the new squadron to the one ordered in 2010 and expedite the delivery if the order is placed soon."
Israeli pilots are to begin training on the F-35 in the United States in 2016, with the first of the fifth-generation fighters scheduled to arrive in Israel in early 2017.
If all that goes to plan, the Israeli air force could have 40 F-35s operational by the end of the decade. These are expected to operate from the Nevatim Air Base in the Negev Desert south of Tel Aviv.
The cost of buying such a number of the new aircraft, which is intended to equip nearly every tactical warplane in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps over the coming years, has triggered an intense debate within Israel's military establishment on what its future war-fighting needs will be.
Critics argue that the funds could be better spent on upgrading existing systems, such as the F-16Is and F-15Is that currently constitute the Israeli air force's strike force.
This argument has been bolstered by the plethora of problems and hefty cost overruns that have plagued the F-35s development in recent years, and have set back production at least two years.
That would delay its operational debut until sometime after 2018 -- seven years later than originally planned.
Jane's Defense Weekly recently reported that a new Pentagon technical report on the F-35 program recommended slowing U.S. acquisition of the new jet due to a "lack of confidence" in the reliability of the design.
That timeframe is one that the Israeli air force finds unacceptable. Due to these potential delays, the air force is looking at the possibility of purchasing second-hand F-15 upgrades and other platforms from the U.S. Air Force at prices far lower than brand-new F-35s.
In December, The Jerusalem Post's military expert, Yaakov Katz, reported that amid the growing concerns about delays in the F-35 deliveries, the Israeli air force has fast-tracked upgrades on its F-16 C/D variants with new avionics and combat systems.
The Post said senior Israeli officers say that additional delays could lead the Defense Ministry to consider buying new F-15 Eagles or F-16 Fighting Falcons from Lockheed Martin and Boeing to bridge the gap if the F-35 delivery dates are pushed back beyond 2017.
Even the U.S. Air Force fears that F-35 production orders will be cut back if the jet doesn't enter service quickly.
These concerns are fueled by the expectation that many U.S. F-16s, which entered production in the 1980s, will soon be too old for operational use.
The Americans are already refurbishing several hundred of their Block 40 and 50 F-16s.
In Israel, the F-35 has some heavyweight backing.
Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the air force commander who steps down in April, supported the JSF acquisition and overcame heavy opposition to push through the 2010 order.
His successor, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, currently head of the Israeli military's Planning Directorate, is expected to press for the second squadron order when he takes over command of the air force.
"The shrinking force structure problem points us toward fewer, but more sophisticated, platforms," former air force commander and chief of the defense staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz observed recently. "The F-35 fits this trend exactly."
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/02/27/Israel-plans-for-second-F-35-squadron/UPI-41711330368531/#ixzz1nbytSCku
Opmerkelijk bericht als ik het goed weet is de IAF helemaal geen voorstander van de F35 en de voorkeur van de IAF gaat uit naar de F15SE.
Is The F-35 Strike Fighter The Military Chevy Volt?
Defense: Pilots who arrived a year ago to train on the fighter of the future are still waiting as safety concerns, cost overruns and questions about the whole program's feasibility mount.
The F-35 is meant to be America's next-generation fighter, the heir to the Air Force's F-15 Eagle and the Navy's and Marines' F/A-18 Hornet. Those two aircraft have fulfilled their air superiority and ground-attack roles well, yet many are well beyond their expected life expectancy.
The F-35 would fill America's defense needs in an age of budget constraints, we were told. So far it has not been a smooth takeoff.
About 35 of the best fighter pilots from the Air Force, Marines and Navy who arrived in the Florida Panhandle last year to learn to fly the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are still waiting. They've been limited to occasionally taxying them and firing up the engines.
Otherwise, their training is limited to three F-35 flight simulators, classroom work and flights in older-model jets. Only a handful of pilots get to fly the F-35s.
Concerns have arisen, ranging from improperly installed parachutes under the pilots' ejector seats to whether the aircraft have been adequately tested.
Production has been slow and delayed, and the cost has risen from $233 billion to $385 billion. Only 43 F-35s have been built, and an additional 2,443 have been ordered by the Pentagon.
Part of the problem is that the F-35 is a one-size-fits-all aircraft designed to fit roles from taking off a carrier's deck to hovering and landing in a confined space on a foreign battlefield. It's meant to be a ground-attack and air-superiority fighter. The question is whether it can adequately be both.
As we learned in past conflicts, relying on one-size-fits-all aircraft can be perilous. Our reliance on the carrier-based F-4 Phantom during Vietnam is a case in point. An aircraft designed to hunt down Soviet bombers during the Cold War, it carried missiles but no guns and was ill-suited for dogfights against MiG fighters designed for a single role — that of air superiority.
That was the role originally designated for the F-22 Raptor, a stealth fighter designed to simply sweep the skies of enemy jets and let other aircraft do their thing. Production was stopped at only 187 planes, with the excuse given that we couldn't afford multiple aircraft for different roles. So the F-35 was designated as our flying jack-of-all-trades.
We've seen these one-size-fits-all and on-the-cheap procurement policies before. The 1960s saw the development of the TFX (Tactical Fighter Experimental), later the F-111, which was to fill all requirements from being a land-based fighter-bomber to a carrier-based aircraft. It wound up too heavy to be a carrier jet and not fast or agile enough to be in a dogfight. Other aircraft had to be procured to fill those needs.
F-35 supporters such as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates have acted as if the two planes are interchangeable. They are not. The Raptor is designed as an air superiority fighter; the F-35 was originally designed for ground attack. It does not have a Mach 1.5 supercruise capability or high-altitude vectored thrust for enhanced high-altitude maneuvering.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., in whose state final assembly occurs, says "the F-35 was designed to operate after F-22s secure the airspace and does not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to survive every time against peers with counterelectronic measures."
We've put all our chips on a fighter chosen seemingly on financial, and not military, needs. Just as the government picked the wrong car with the Chevy Volt, it may have picked the wrong fighter with the F-35.
On the highway, trying to pick winners can be merely unfortunate, but on the battlefield it can be deadly.
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=602484&ibdbot=1&p=2
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/02/2012 | 07:49 uur
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., in whose state final assembly occurs, says "the F-35 was designed to operate after F-22s secure the airspace and does not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to survive every time against peers with counterelectronic measures."
We've put all our chips on a fighter chosen seemingly on financial, and not military, needs. Just as the government picked the wrong car with the Chevy Volt, it may have picked the wrong fighter with the F-35.
On the highway, trying to pick winners can be merely unfortunate, but on the battlefield it can be deadly.
Dit is nogal een uitspraak !!
Wel een beetje off-topic, maar laat wel zien dat een "simpel" prop-toestel een technisch prima en goedkoop toestel kan zijn, welke goed gebruikt kan worden voor CAS en COIN.
Procedure-fout in de aankoop van Light Attack Aircraft, maar hij komt er wel
US Air Force cancels deal for Brazilian-made aircraft
The US Air Force has canceled a $355 million contract for a light attack aircraft made by Brazil's Embraer, saying it would open an investigation after protests from a rival US aerospace firm, officials said Tuesday.
The contract for 20 Embraer AT-29 Super Tucano aircraft was awarded in December as part of plans to arm the Afghan military amid a NATO troop drawdown.
But the US Air Force said it was not "satisfied" with the paperwork supporting the decision to hand the project to US-based Sierra Nevada Corporation, in partnership with Embraer.
The US military wants to provide a light aircraft for Afghan's air fleet to conduct flight training, aerial reconnaissance and combat support operations for ground troops.
The AT-29 Super Tucano is a turboprop aircraft designed for low threat environments.
However Hawker Beechcraft Corp, based in Wichita, Kansas, protested the award, arguing that its AT-6 plane was unfairly shut out of the competition.
Embraer officials denied the allegations but were unable to stop a government investigation.
"Today, the Air Force advised the Department of Justice that it will take corrective action on the Afghanistan Light Air Support contract and will set aside the contract award to Sierra Nevada effective March 2, 2012," the Air Force said in a statement.
"While we pursue perfection, we sometimes fall short, and when we do we will take corrective action," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said in the same statement.
He added that the service's senior acquisition executive "is not satisfied with the quality of the documentation supporting the award decision" but did not elaborate, citing pending litigation.
The statement also said the head of Air Force Materiel Command, General Donald Hoffman, has launched an investigation into the award.
Lawmakers who represent Kansas, where Hawker Beechcraft is located, had raised questions about the deal with Sierra Nevada and Embraer.
In Brazil, Embraer said in a statement that it had provided "on time and without exceptions, all the required documentation" in partnership with Sierra Nevada.
The decision "in favor of the Super Tucano... was a choice for the best product with proven performance in action and all the necessary capabilities to meet client demands," Embraer said.
Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano / AT-29 $ 14 miljoen dollar vlieg-uur-kosten : $ 500 dollar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
F-35 purchase may be cancelled if prices rise: Japan defense minister
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Defense Minister Naoki Tanaka said Wednesday that the purchase of the F-35 stealth jet, which Japan picked as its next-generation mainstay fighter, may be cancelled should there be a delay in the aircraft's delivery or an increase from the initial price tag.
"If the U.S. proposal falls through, we should eye the possibility of cancelling the contract or selecting a new aircraft," Tanaka told a parliament session.
The Defense Ministry has indicated in a letter dated Feb. 13 to the U.S. Department of Defense on possibly halting the F-35 purchases if prices skyrocket from the initially agreed figure.
Japan announced in December that it had decided on the F-35, which is being developed by an international consortium led by U.S. aircraft maker Lockheed Martin Corp.
The ministry plans to procure four F-35 jets in fiscal 2012 starting April. In that fiscal year, each aircraft has been estimated to cost about 8.9 billion yen, or 9.9 billion yen per aircraft including spare parts.
The U.S. military has postponed orders for 179 F-35 fighter planes for five years as part of its fiscal 2013 defense budget plan, due to delays in the aircraft's development, making the prospect of mass production uncertain. The expected price of the F-35 jets for the U.S. military has also risen.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120229p2g00m0dm111000c.html
AESA Radar Equipped Lockheed Martin F-16 V By Year End
Wed, Feb 29, 2012 19:04 CET
The F-16 V version, announced within the last fortnight, is likely to enter service with some of Lockheed Martin's (LM) international customers late this year or the next. The Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar equipped fighter is the latest iteration of the long standing F-16 fighter.
Ana M. Wugofski, Vice President, International Business Development and Steven L. Over, Senior Regional Director-Asia pacific, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Defenseworld.net spoke to Ana M Wugofski, Vice President, International Business Development, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics during the recent Singapore Air Show 2012 who said that the F-16 V's major improvements include the radar, cockpit and mission computer. "The AESA radar brings a lot of capabilities in terms of situational awareness for which additional computing abilities are required", she added.
Lockheed Martin, which is scheduled to deliver its F-16 number 4500 in April this year to an undisclosed customer will be offering the version "V" both as an upgrade and as new fighter, she said adding that existing and new customers would benefit from the phenomenal capabilities of the AESA radar. "Lockheed Martin had developed a solution to affordably integrate the AESA radar into existing F-16s".
Currently, the F-16 V is the only fighter aircraft of its kind to have an AESA radar both as new and as retro-fit configuration. The earlier Block 60 version, in service with the UAE Air Force has the AESA radar. However, the new version would allow integration of the AESA into even earlier F-16 versions such as the Block 40 and Block 50, she added. Thanks to continuous evolution, while the F-16 had grown in terms of users and capabilities, it still remained an affordable fighter. This core values would be further strengthened with the new version, she added.
Lockheed Martin was currently talking to 4-5 customers right now for possible sale of the F-16V but their names could not be disclosed, said Ana. However, it had been made public that Taiwan and South Korea had put up RFIs (request for information) for capability enhancement of their F-16 with features of the F-16V version.
Ana said the F-16 V would remain among the most advanced fourth generation fighters for years to come despite the fact that the original F-16 was designed decades ago. "There is very little to compare the earlier F-16s with the current version", she added.
Defenseworld.net comment: The F-16V may have scored a point over its European rivals such as the Eurofigher and the Dassault Rafale due to the fact that its AESA radar is a game changer in today's air warfare scenario. Though designed much later, the two European fighters are not expected to be equipped with AESA radars until 2016. Political considerations aside, this would give the F-16 V a major advantage in procurement programs till the middle of this decade.
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?catid=3&id=6665&h=AESA%20Radar%20Equipped%20Lockheed%20Martin%20F-16%20V%20Year
Defence Department concerned about lack of definitive F-35 cost estimate, documents show
By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News February 29, 2012
OTTAWA — Defence Department officials recognized months ago that the absence of a single, authoritative cost for each F-35 fighter jet to be purchased was a major communications problem — even as they bandied around a range of figures themselves, internal documents show.
This has emerged as opposition parties seize on a warning that Japan may cancel its F-35 order if the price increases and a British minister's admission that his government doesn't know how much it will pay for each stealth fighter.
Documents obtained by Postmedia News through access to information show that since the Conservative government announced in July 2010 that Canada would be purchasing 65 F-35s for $9 billion, plus another $7 billion in maintenance costs, the Defence Department has been tirelessly tracking what the media is writing about the jets.
The information, which includes blogs and Twitter, is compiled into reports delivered to senior officials every few weeks.
The reports include a breakdown of which journalists are writing about the stealth fighters, whether their stories are positive or negative, and whether the articles addressed the F-35s performance, delivery schedule or price.
One report, from Oct. 17, 2011, notes that over the preceding 15 months, nearly 2,900 articles had been published on the F-35, the majority of which were critical of the purchase.
When asked about the stealth fighter in the House of Commons, the Conservative government has repeatedly highlighted the F-35's expected capabilities. But the report notes the vast majority of the articles written about the jet aren't about its performance, but its cost.
"Adding to the criticism is confusion over how costs should be calculated, with multiple and conflicting estimates detracting from the credibility of official sources," the report reads.
In fact, it adds, "the absence of a single, authoritative figure on estimated per-plane cost is leaving the field open to speculation, and detracting from the credibility of spokespeople on related issues such as (the F-35's) performance."
The report goes on to note that during the previous month, no less than six prices had been cited by different sources.
These included a $65-million figure from manufacturer Lockheed Martin, $75 million from the Canadian Defence Department, $103 million from the head of the Pentagon's Cost Assessment Office, $113 million from a U.S. congressional committee, $137 million from the Israeli military and $148 million from parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page.
The report then notes that according to the U.S. Defense Department, "the cost of the F-35 has risen by 85 per cent since the program began — from $59.1 million per unit in 2001 to $108.7 million in October 2011."
Separate reports and emails show Canadian officials flagging reports in other countries, particularly the U.S., about cost increases.
"The first 28 F-35s have overshot their cost targets by $771 (million) combined, or about $27.5 million per plane," reads one email attaching a relevant article in July 2011.
The author later adds: "Didn't make it into the Canadian media, but it's attracting some attention internationally and on the blogs."
Even now, the exact cost for each F-35 remains shrouded in mystery both in Canada and abroad.
The British minister responsible for purchasing military equipment, Peter Luff, admitted in his country's parliament on Feb. 20 that when it comes to how much each F-35 will cost, "the honest answer is that we do not know."
"The Americans are not reducing the total numbers for the purchase of the joint strike fighter, but they have changed the profile of those purchases," he said. "Other partner nations have indicated that they will reduce their off-take. That is likely to have implications for JSF prices, particularly those acquired in the early stages of the process, which is when this country intends to acquire its JSFs."
Japanese Defence Minister Naoki Tanaka, meanwhile, told his own parliament on Wednesday that Japan may cancel its order of 42 F-35s if the price increases.
Associate Deputy Minister Julian Fantino refused to provide details on Canada's own situation in the face of opposition questions on Wednesday, saying only that no contract had yet been signed.
While the Conservative government initially said Canada would purchase 65 F-35s at about $75 million each, but it has since backed away from those statements. Rather, it says $9 billion has been set aside to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s, with another $7 billion for maintenance over 20 years.
The government will also be hosting a meeting of all participating nations at the Canadian Embassy in Washington on Friday to discuss the project.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/Defence+Department+concerned+about+lack+definitive+cost+estimate+documents+show/6230225/story.html#ixzz1nqUnlxHc
Sweden Needs Up to 80 New Gripen Fighter Jets: Military
Feb. 29, 2012 - 05:19PM
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
STOCKHOLM — Sweden will have to begin replacing its aging fighter fleet in 2020 and will need 60 to 80 new Swedish-made Gripen jets, the military said in a report handed over to the government Feb. 29.
"The capability upgrade of the fighter jet system should begin in 2020 and is calculated to take 10 years," the military said in a statement, adding that "Sweden needs at least 60 to 80 planes."
"The upgrade of JAS Gripen is necessary to ensure that the fighter jet system is operatively relevant and that our air defense in the long run can stand up compared to the world around us," it added.
Swedish defense and aerospace group Saab's JAS 39 Gripen planes already make up the Scandinavian country's fighter jet fleet, but the air force wants an upgraded version with a bigger hull and more powerful engine, according to the military.
"This will allow room for more weapons and more fuel, which in turn leads to higher efficiency and durability," it said in the statement, adding that a better "radar and an improved alert- and counter-action system" were also on its wish list.
Gen. Sverker Goeranson said it was too early to reveal the expected cost of the upgrade, although he told a news conference it would be "very expensive."
Swedish media hinted the price tag could be around 30 billion kronor ($4.5 billion, 3.4 billion euros).
The military said it's aim was to carry out the upgrades and split the cost with "at least one other strategic partner country," but did not reveal which countries it was considering.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120229/DEFREG01/302290012/Sweden-Needs-Up-80-New-Gripen-Fighter-Jets-Military?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Nu ook in de Nederlandse media
'Japan ziet af van JSF als prijs stijgt'
TOKIO - Japan overweegt orders voor de Lockheed Martin F-35, de Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), af te zeggen als de prijs van het vliegtuig verder stijgt of de levering vertraging oploopt.
Dat heeft de Japanse minister van Defensie, Naoki Tanaka, woensdag gezegd.
Japan heeft plannen om in totaal 42 toestellen te kopen. Minister Tanaka dreigde echter met het afzeggen van een order van de eerste vier vliegtuigen en een nieuwe selectieprocedure, als fabrikant Lockheed Martin de beloofde prijs en levertijd niet kan waarmaken.
Het is de eerste keer dat Japan de Amerikanen zo openlijk waarschuwt voor een prijsstijging van de straaljager.
Onlangs maakte zowel het Pentagon als het Italiaanse ministerie van Defensie bekend minder F-35's aan te schaffen. Fabrikant Lockheed Martin liet daarop weten dat de aanschafprijs van de toestellen daardoor kan stijgen.
Nederland heeft de F-35 op het oog als opvolger van de F-16.
http://www.nu.nl/economie/2752960/japan-ziet-af-van-jsf-als-prijs-stijgt.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/03/2012 | 08:04 uur
Sweden Needs Up to 80 New Gripen Fighter Jets: Military
Gripen E/F (NG) opvallend of zorgelijk....?
Bestelde men vorige eeuw in Zweden nog 200+ Gripens waarna het aantal is teruggebracht tot 100 stuks en nu een behoefte stelling van 60 tot 80 Gripens E/F (NG).
Het (economische) vooruitzicht voor de Gripen E/F (NG) is hiermee niet rooskleuriger geworden en het bestaansrecht zal zwaar leunen op export orders (vooralsnog alleen, onder voorbehoud, Zwitserland met 22 stuks)
Misschien dat de huidige Gripen gebruikers na 2020 ook kiezen voor de E/F, maar zelfs dan komen er slechts enkele tientallen bij.
Citaat van: dudge op 01/03/2012 | 10:02 uur
Zouden ze dat hier ook doen? Zouden ze ook op dit forum mee lezen?
Ik ben altijd wel nieuwsgierig naar geen forum leden die als gast frequent te vinden zijn op diverse topics, dus wie weet...
Citaat van: dudge op 01/03/2012 | 10:14 uur
Uiteindelijk hebben ze maar 1 goede deal nodig. Nu twijfel ik of ze deze kunnen binnenhalen, maar als het ze lukt zullen ze serieuze competitie kunnen vormen. In ieder geval in het lagere segment.
Mee eens, maar wie?
Naast Zweden en Zwitserland ligt de focus op Brazilië en daar lijken, sinds de Indiase voorkeur, de kaarten langzaam maar zeker in het voordeel voor de Fransen te werken.
F-35 Canada: Tories Change Talking Points On Fighter Jet Purchase Ahead Of Allied Meeting
First Posted: 02/29/2012 6:12 pm Updated: 03/ 1/2012 9:17 am
OTTAWA - The Conservative government is sounding decidedly less hawkish on its planned purchase of stealth fighters as it heads into a critical meeting with allies in Washington on the future of the controversial F-35 program.
Despite months of heavy opposition fire, Julian Fantino — the associate defence minister and the government's point man on the troubled fighter file — has stuck faithfully to the Tory script: the costly planes are necessary for the men and women of Canada's military. Period.
That script, however, has been tweaked.
"All I can say, repeatedly, is that we are in fact engaged with all of our partners in this particular issue," Fantino said Wednesday in the House of Commons.
"No contracts have been signed."
The fact Canada is potentially a year — maybe two — away from signing on the dotted line with Lockheed Martin Corp. is not something the Conservatives were eager to trumpet as they stumped around the country trying to convince supporters, opponents and taxpayers to accept the eye-popping $9-billion price tag.
Canada's apparent enthusiasm — despite soaring costs, delays, and technical glitches — even caught the attention of the U.S. media. The Dallas-Fort Worth Star wryly noted last fall that Canada seemed more committed to the F-35 than the U.S. did.
Conservative sources with knowledge of the file say there has been a deliberate pivot in strategy, one meant to acknowledge the obvious: The F-35 is "a developmental aircraft, a developmental program; it's not really a procurement and we don't have a contract."
That does not mean the Conservatives are in any way less committed to buying the plane, the sources added.
It might, for a while at least, relieve some of the political pain the Conservatives have been feeling, including growing alarm among caucus members about the barrage of screaming headlines from the U.S. on the program's mounting cost and its many glitches.
Both the NDP and Liberals have been relentless and gleeful in their assault on the Conservative position, rising almost every day in the House of Commons to point out flaws and mock Fantino for reading from a talking-points script.
The meeting among allied nations, slated for Friday at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, came about partly after Fantino spoke with his Italian and Norwegian counterparts who have similar concerns, said one of the Conservative sources.
The one-day session is a precursor to a larger meeting in Australia in a few weeks.
One of the biggest concerns for the United States is the estimated life-time sustainment costs of the radar-evading jet. It's been estimated that servicing the American fleet of 2,243 aircraft could cost up to $1 trillion over 50 years.
New figures from the Pentagon suggest operational costs on Canada's fleet of 65 fighters could run in the range of US$14 billion, depending upon how long the country chooses to fly them.
The estimate bolsters a report last year by parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, which challenged the Harper government and the Defence Department's claim that it would cost in the neighbourhood of US$7 billion over 20 years to keep the jets aloft.
Page's assessment, released prior to the last election, was dismissed as inaccurate speculation.
But the U.S. Defence Department quietly noted earlier last week that the F-35 will cost about US$30,000 per hour to fly and maintain over the decades it's expected to be in service.
When those figures are calculated for the Royal Canadian Air Force, it works out to US$7.2 million per aircraft per year — or US$468 million annually for the entire fleet.
How long the multi-role fighters are to remain in service was a point of bitter dispute between Page and defence officials, with the federal government insisting the planes would only see two decades of action.
If that is the case, the maintenance bill could run as low as US$9.3 billion, a total that's still far higher than the numbers National Defence has chosen to use.
The price tag climbs to US $14.04 billion for three decades of use, which is what Page estimated in his controversial report.
The budget watchdog also tossed in an extra $5 billion for the inevitable overhaul and upgrades each aircraft would need after at least 20 years of flying — bringing his grand total to $19 billion.
The calculation is based on the F-35s flying an average of 240 hours per year.
Observers say the only way the air force could meet its projections would be if the F-35s are flown much less than the existing squadrons of CF-18s, which documents tabled in Parliament show have been in the air an average of 223 hours per year since they were purchased in the 1980s.
The Pentagon has acknowledged it considers the sustainment costs too high and is working to bring down the figures.
The F-35 program office is also still working on a comprehensive review of the operation and maintenance costs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/29/f35-canada-julian-fantino_n_1311757.html
En de Russen investeren !! ook in niet stealth toestellen.
SU-34 is te vergelijken met F-15E
Informatie SU-34 Fullback
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
Russian Defense Ministry to Buy 92 Su-34 Fighters
MOSCOW --- The Russian Defense Ministry has signed a deal for 92 Su-34 Fullback fighter-bombers from the Sukhoi aircraft maker, the ministry said on Thursday.
The deal under which the warplanes are to be delivered by 2020 was signed by Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and Sukhoi General Director Igor Ozar.
This is one of the largest warplane contracts under the government arms procurement program and it will help replace all of the Su-24 bombers currently in service with the "4+ generation" aircraft, Serdyukov said.
The ministry previously said a total of 70 Su-34s will be delivered by 2015.
The news comes a week after Russia partially resumed flights of Su-24 Fencer tactical bombers after one of them crashed in Russia's Urals.
All Su-24s were grounded after the crash, in the woods of the Kurgan region during a routine flight on February 13. Both pilots ejected safely. The crash was the third of a Su-24 in Russia over the last four months. The two previous crashes occurred in October and December 2011.
It has been in service with the Russian Air Force since the mid-1970s. However, in recent years Russia has gradually been phasing out the planes, which have a patchy safety record.
The Defense Ministry earlier said the Air Force will procure over 1,500 new aircraft by 2020.
Russia started the full-scale production of Su-34s in 2008 at a Novosibirsk-based aircraft-manufacturing plant, a subsidiary of the Sukhoi Aircraft Holding.
Designed by Sukhoi, the $36-million Su-34 fighter-bomber is a two-seat strike aircraft fitted with twin AL-31MF afterburner turbojet engines.
It is designed to deliver high-precision strikes on heavily-defended targets under any weather conditions, day or night, and is equipped with a 30-mm GSh-301 cannon, up to 12 Alamo or Archer AAMs, ASMs, and bombs.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133186/russia-orders-92-su_34s-to-replace-fencer.html#
Ik heb altijd het idee dat de F-15E veel meer multirole is/kan zijn.
Dit is echt een soort F-111 dedicated bommenwerper lijkt mij.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/03/2012 | 22:19 uur
Ik heb altijd het idee dat de F-15E veel meer multirole is/kan zijn.
Dit is echt een soort F-111 dedicated bommenwerper lijkt mij.
SU-24 Fencer = F-111
SU-34 Fullback = F-15E
Then there's the SU-32/34 "Fullback." It was envisaged as a Flanker family successor to the F-111 analogue SU-24 "Fencer," which was very highly regarded in Chechnya as a battlefield support aircraft. Its closest western comparison is the F-15E Strike Eagle, but the Russian design has evolved since its initial drafts in 1986, most visibly so in the present side-by-side cockpit configuration
•8 tonne ordnance load. Air Force Technology adds that this is distributed on 10 hardpoints, which can accommodate precision-guided weapons as well as R-73/AA-11 Archer and R-77/AA-12 'AMRAAMSKI' missiles. The aircraft is also armed with a 30mm GSh-301 gun and 180 rounds.http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/russia-to-begin-receiving-su34-longrange-strike-fighters-02595/
Citaat van: IPA NG op 01/03/2012 | 22:19 uur
Ik heb altijd het idee dat de F-15E veel meer multirole is/kan zijn.
Dit is echt een soort F-111 dedicated bommenwerper lijkt mij.
Vind ik van niet het is eerder een F15E met de cockpit van de A-6 Intruder .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder
US jet contract decision "surprised" Brazil gov't
01 Mar 2012 23:51
Source: reuters // Reuters
* Brazil "surprised" with U.S. plane contract decision
* Says move "doesn't help" bilateral defense programs
* U.S. gov't "still interested" in Embraer aircraft
* Brazil to remain in talks with U.S. over decision (Recasts to add Brazil government statement, details throughout)
By Jeb Blount and Guillermo Parra-Bernal
RIO DE JANEIRO/SÃO PAULO, March 1 (Reuters) - A decision by the United States to cancel a $355 million defense aircraft contract with Brazilian planemaker Embraer has surprised the government of Brazil which had hoped for the development of a bilateral defense program, Brazil's Foreign Affairs Ministry said on Thursday.
The ministry said in a statement that the government was "surprised" with the cancellation "especially with the way that it happened and the timing." The U.S. Air Force earlier this week called off the purchase of 20 Embraer's Super Tucano jets due to problems with documentation.
The light, ground-attack aircraft was sought to provide close air support for the Afghan Army in the field and as a turbo-prop training plane for Afghan Air Force pilots. With future orders, the contract is believed to be worth as much as $1 billion.
"The government believes that this situation doesn't help to the progress of bilateral relations on the defense area," the statement said.
The cancellation comes as the U.S. seeks to sell fighter aircraft to Brazil. Boeing Co's F-18 "Super Hornet" fighter is in competition with Dassault's Rafale and Saab's "Gripen NG" for an order of at least 36 jets for Brazil's Air Force.
Reuters reported on Feb. 12, citing unnamed government sources, that Brazil is "very likely" to choose Dassault in the bid. The cancellation of the Embraer deal caused some senior figures within President Dilma Rousseff's administration to wonder if it was retaliation for Boeing reportedly falling out of favor, officials told Reuters this week.
Early on Thursday, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns said in Rio de Janeiro that his country is still interested in acquiring the Embraer planes. The contract, which was awarded to Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corp, also included the supply of electronics and other services.
The U.S. Air Force blamed "faulty paperwork" for the cancellation of the contract, which is also being challenged in U.S. Federal court by the losing bidder, Hawker Beechcraft .
"Embraer is obviously a great company and the Super Tucano is a very fine aircraft," Burns said. "The United States is now in the midst of some internal processes but we remain interested."
Neither the Air Force nor Burns would elaborate on the documentation problems.
NO RETALIATION
Burns sought to put concerns over mutual retaliation to rest, saying that "these are separate contracts." The Brazilian government will remain in talks with the United States over the matter, the statement said.
"We're convinced that the F-18 is the best of the available aircraft and a reflection of that is that it is the aircraft that the United States is going to be using for the next 20 to 30 years," Burns said.
As part of the agreement Boeing will provide the technology for Brazil to build much of the aircraft on its own, a key factor for Brazilian politicians looking to boost their aircraft industry and defense capabilities.
"We're convinced that the technology transfer package that we're offering along with that aircraft (F-18) is unprecedented in our relationship (with Brazil)" he said. "It is exactly the same kind of package that we offer to our closest NATO partners."
NATO members include Britain, Canada, France and Germany.
The U.S. Air Force chief of staff, General Norton Schwartz, acknowledged earlier this week that the cancellation of the Super Tucano contract was an embarrassment for the Air Force, which has struggled with acquisition problems over the last decade. Schwartz said "there would be hell to pay" if the documentation problem was not an innocent mistake.
The United States, which has soldiers in Afghanistan along with other Nato nations, is handling the procurement agreement for the Afghan Air Force.
The cancellation of the Super Tucano contract is one of several Embraer has faced involving the United States over the last 20 years. In the 1990s, the Super Tucano and Embraer in partnership with U.S.-based Northrop Grumman lost out as the joint fighter training aircraft for Nato after heavy lobbying from U.S. competitors.
While the Super Tucano is driven by a propeller, that prop is driven by a gasoline turbine rather than pistons driven by an internal combustion engine. As a result, its performance is similar to that of a jet aircraft and is considered a good trainer for jet pilots.
Embraer sells about two-thirds of its aircraft, including regional passenger jets and executive aircraft, in the United States and gets about two-thirds of its engines and other parts from U.S. suppliers, Burns said. (Additional reporting by Brian Winter in São Paulo; Editing by Richard Chang, Bernard Orr)
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/us-jet-contract-decision-surprised-brazil-govt
Via LinkedIn:
Ian Knight • Zeer fraaie foto van de CV/STOVL variants
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9967551/Pax.jpg
Citaat van: dudge op 02/03/2012 | 11:01 uur
perfect plot for Top Gun 2 has no combat sequences at all. Instead, it goes like this:
Maverick is a test pilot struggling to keep the flight test programme on schedule, even though his better judgment is sometimes compromised by a lifelong, paralyzing fear of vertical landings. Maverick almost throws in the towel after his favourite knee board/test card holder is destroyed in an unfortunate lift fan malfunction. Meanwhile, the programme's enemies, led by the snearing Bill "Iceman" Sweetman and Karlo "Slider" Kopp, take advantage of Maverick's absence to nearly bury the programme in a wave of seemingly overwhelming blog attacks. That's when Maverick's love interest -- a Texas congresswoman strategically placed on the AirLand subcommittee -- intervenes. She gives Maverick her father's last knee board (er, her father was also a test pilot ... just go with it) and literally pushes him back into the cockpit. Maverick straps on the knee board, takes the Block 3 software build out for a spin, hits every test point and -- for the finale -- lands vertically right on top of Aviation Week's building in downtown Washington DC. And that's when Kenny Loggins starts singing.
Een perfecte vergelijking, uitstekend verwoord !!! ;D
Top Gun 1, = kassucces
Toestel : F-14 Tomcat, het beste toestel wat de US Navy heeft gehad.
Top Gun 2 = financiele misser
Toestel : F-35 lighting II, het duurste testtoestel wat de US Navy heeft gehad.
UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one
Decision expected by Easter on which US joint strike fighter Britain will buy: ministers now want to revert to original choice
Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.
The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.
Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.
Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan – namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .
The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers – whose own estimated costs have soared – was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.
Murphy referred to "worrying suggestions" that the government was about to change its mind about the kind of aircraft to buy from the US. "It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme," he wrote.
Murphy said the decision in the defence review to scrap the Harrier fleet meant the UK would have no carrier aircraft capability until 2020 – and then only one carrier would be operational.
Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.
HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it – nor what kind.
The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to icrease to as much as £12bn.
The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.
A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 1 March 2012 19.21 GMT
Citaat van: Lex op 02/03/2012 | 16:03 uur
UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one
Forrest Gump: My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."
Het zal me benieuwen!
F-22 Raptor "smoking gun" not found
By Michael Hoffman Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 10:50 am
Air Force leaders still do not know for sure why the F-22 Raptor keeps suffocating its pilots after the service completed a fleet-wide study of its aircraft oxygen generation systems.
Air Force engineers didn't find a "smoking gun" during the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board's quick-look study, said Lt. Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley ordered the study after the service grounded its F-22 fleet when multiple pilots experienced "hypoxia-like" symptoms in flight.
An F-22 pilot crashed and died in November. An Accident Investigation Board found the fighter jet's bleed air intakes malfunctioned and Capt. Jeffrey Haney "most likely experienced a sense similar to suffocation." However, the AIB's controversial report blamed the pilot, not the aircraft for the crash. The Defense Department's Inspector General is completing an assessment of that report.
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board found that a "couple of contributing factors" to include a leaky cooling system has restricting oxygen reaching pilots, Carlisle said on Tuesday. He didn't want to list it as the "smoking gun" because service engineers do not know for sure how the fluid from the cooling system got into the F-22's On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS).
Engineers also found problems with the F-22's breathing regulator/anti-G valve, better known as the BRAG valve, Carlisle said. The BRAG valve connects the OBOGS to the pilot's oxygen mask.
When there is a problem, F-22 pilots also do not receive "indications and warnings" fast enough in "fleeting cases", Carlisle said.
The Air Force three-star said the problems with the oxygen system do not just affect the F-22. Engineers found similar problems in the Navy's F-18. The Air Force has shared results of their quick look study with Navy leaders.
The quick-look study inspected the oxygen generation systems of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, CV-22 Osprey, and T-6 Texan II as well as the F-22.
Air Force officials will inspect the F-22's emergency oxygen system analyzing how it's used and what "it takes to deploy it," Carlisle said.
The service will continue to study each case in which F-22 pilots experience hypoxia-like symptoms. A special team continues to inspect the problem, Carlisle said.
Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/28/f-22-raptor-smoking-gun-not-found/#ixzz1nz8M9iut
DoDBuzz.com
USAF Reducing Possible JSF Basing Locations
Mar 2, 2012
By Amy Butler
The U.S. Air Force has begun reducing the number of bases at which it plans to eventually house the new F-35 in an attempt to reduce the estimated life-cycle cost of the single-engine, stealthy fighter.
Last year, the Pentagon disclosed an estimate of more than $1 trillion to operate the fighter for the next 50 years, raising significant concern from customers, including the U.S. Navy and Air Force. Since then, the services have been working to refine their plans to operate the jet in hopes of curbing operations and sustainment (O&S) cost.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz says the original cost estimate contained more than 40 operating locations for the F-35A, and "We are pressing down on that. We are in the low 30s now."
Schwartz adds that the initial cost estimate is "of limited value" because it projected so far out into the future – 50 years. Typical cost estimates of this type span fewer years, he notes.
Fewer operating locations could dovetail with the service's request to conduct new rounds of base closures with a hope of reducing as much as 20% of excess infrastructure being operated by the Air Force.
Meanwhile, Schwartz notes that the service is reviewing its O&S costs with a eye toward cutting costs across its sustainment activities. Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) — when a company is called upon to manage maintenance of a weapon system — is being looked at because it is often very costly. "The model for the F-35 is now largely CLS," Schwartz says. "That may change."
Meanwhile, Schwartz says the first F-35A flight at Eglin AFB, Fla., is slated for next week. This is a milestone for the program as nine F-35s have been at the base on the ground awaiting clearance to fly. That clearance was issued by the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center on Feb. 28. Officials there said there were limitations to the flight profile but cited operational security as a reason for not articulating what they are.
Schwartz says initial flights of the F-35A and B will be conducted by one U.S. Air Force test pilot and one U.S. Marine Corps test pilot. Initially, they will conduct local area operations flights and gradually add to the flight profiles to reach portions of the syllabus that can be taught to pilot trainers.
This will continue until Air Education and Training Center Commander Gen. Edward Rice, Jr., is confident the wing at Eglin can conduct enough routine sorties to support early training requirements. His approval will be required to begin formal training.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2012/03/02/04.xml&headline=USAF%20Reducing%20Possible%20JSF%20Basing%20Locations
F-22 Woes Continue to Flummox Air Force
March 01, 2012
Military.com|by Michael Hoffman
An Air Force three-star general, call sign "Hawk," stood in the basement of a hotel outside Washington this week and described, in detail, how difficult it is to shoot down an F-22 Raptor.
The F-15 command pilot with 3,600 flying hours boasted to the room of defense industry officials and blue-suiters how an Eagle driver's only chance is to attack with his joint helmet-mounted cueing system in the split second after an F-22 pilot has throttled up his jet but before his countermeasures protect the aircraft. If not, the F-22 wins nearly every time in the mock air battles flown between F-15s and F-22s over the Nevada desert.
"The F-22 guy has to put up his power a nanosecond too early and not use his countermeasure and you may get a fleeting, one nanosecond AIM-9X shot and that's about it," said Lt. Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle. That's why the world's greatest fighter jet has a 30 to 1 kill ratio in simulated dogfights.
Of course, that scenario assumes the F-22 doesn't kill its own pilot first.
For the past 16 months, the Air Force has dedicated teams of engineers to figure out why F-22 pilots consistently have trouble breathing inside the cockpit. One of them, Capt. Jeffrey Haney, crashed his F-22 on Nov. 16, 2010 in the Alaskan wilderness on his way back to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.
Sixteen months later, on Feb. 28, the Air Force grounded flights at the same base after three pilots reported hypoxia-like symptoms over the course of two weeks. After a one day mission pause for a "review" the F-22s returned to the air on Feb. 29.
It was not the first grounding for the $77 billion fifth-generation fighter fleet. Officials restricted missions to below 25,000 feet after Haney's crash before grounding the fleet altogether for five months in May 2011. And still the Air Force can't figure out why pilots can't breathe.
Service officials launched an Accident Investigation Board to look into Haney's crash that yielded a controversial report. The board faulted Haney for the crash even though the Raptor's bleed air system failed and its Onboard Oxygen Generating System shut down. Investigators wrote that Haney "most likely experienced a sense similar to suffocation" before his Raptor nose-dived into the ground.
Haney's family has publicly complained about the report, with skeptics questioning if the board is trying to protect the Air Force's much-maligned F-22 program. They may have some cause: the Defense Department's own Inspector General opened an assessment into the Air Force's accident report this month.
No matter whose fault it is, Carlisle said F-22 pilots continue to experience hypoxia-like symptoms 16 months after the crash. Hypoxia occurs when the brain doesn't receive enough oxygen resulting in dizziness, confusion and inattentiveness.
Defense giant Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22 and its newer F-35 Lightning II, received a $24 million boost to its 10-year, $7.4 billion Raptor Enhancement Development and Integration contract to fix the oxygen system, among other tasks.
The Air Force's Scientific Advisory Board completed a quick-look study that investigated the oxygen generation systems for eight Air Force bombers and fighters as well as the F-22 -- and still couldn't find a simple solution, Carlisle said.
Service engineers found a "couple of contributing factors" as part of the quick-look study, include leaks in the cooling system, Carlisle said. He didn't finger that as the cause because engineers didn't know how the fluid got into the F-22s Onboard Oxygen Generating System.
Engineers also found problems with the F-22s breathing regulator/anti-G valve, better known as the BRAG valve. The BRAG valve connects the OBOGS to the pilot's oxygen mask.
When the aircraft's oxygen system does experience a problem, F-22 pilots do not receive "indications and warnings" fast enough in "fleeting cases," Carlisle said.
The oxygen woes aren't the first problems suffered by the world's most advanced fighter jet.
One of its first flyable test models crashed in 1992 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., setting back the F-22's development.
In 2007, twelve F-22s had to return home to Hawaii on a flight to Japan when all of their on-board computers crashed when the formation crossed the international dateline.
The program has also been dinged by critics for including a data link that can only communicate with other F-22s. Officials wanted to keep the F-22 as stealthy as possible, including in its data communications. However, in a joint environment working with allies, an inability to talk with many units restricts the aircraft's usefulness.
The Air Force is working on installing a Multifunction Advanced Data Link in the F-22 as well as the B-2 and F-35 to connect it with other jets.
All these problems occurred with the nation at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the past decade in which some service members have served six deployments, the F-22 didn't fly one combat sortie. It has left many critics asking what American taxpayers bought for $350 million per copy.
Eventually, that sentiment prevailed on the Pentagon: Air Force leaders originally had plans to buy some 750 F-22s. Defense Secretary Robert Gates cut off production at 187, leaving plenty of generals in flight suits grumbling in the Air Force's wing of the Pentagon.
Some defense analysts felt the battle over the F-22 partly contributed to Gates' firing of the Air Force's leadership in 2007. Gates removed former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne in 2007 after the service lost track of six nuclear warheads over America's heartland. However, Moseley and Wynne also expended a great deal of political capital with Gates trying to extend F-22 production.
F-22 critics point to the oxygen problems as vindication for Gates' ultimate decision to invest more heavily in the F-35, although Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently delayed that program.
Carlisle said the Air Force continues to have engineer teams dedicated to figuring out why F-22 pilots can't breathe. The service is collecting as much data as possible any time a pilot experiences a shortness of breath.
"We have looked at everything on that system to the 'nth' degree, and the bottom line is that there's no smoking gun," he said.
© Copyright 2012 Military.com.
Zijn de capaciteiten van de F22 niet gewoon een Mythe? Buiten de Amerikanen heeft niemand dat toestel kunnen uit proberen...
Citaat van: Enforcer op 02/03/2012 | 22:05 uur
Zijn de capaciteiten van de F22 niet gewoon een Mythe? Buiten de Amerikanen heeft niemand dat toestel kunnen uit proberen...
Goede vraag...
Is er al een NL piloot die er tegen gevlogen heeft?
Volgens mij heeft Poleme het een keer gehad over een succesvolle actie van Zweedse Gripens.
Zouden ze uberbaupt exchange piloten op een F22 hebben?
Citaat van: Enforcer op 02/03/2012 | 22:18 uur
Volgens mij heeft Poleme het een keer gehad over een succesvolle actie van Zweedse Gripens.
Zouden ze uberbaupt exchange piloten op een F22 hebben?
Een heel nest Gripens. Ik heb stukken gelezen waarbij 4 to 6 Eurofighters het ook zouden winnen van 1 F22 (??)
Ik tot heden niets gelezen over exchange piloten op een F22.
F22 Raptor and F35 Flying Together (HD)
over Mount Whitney, enjoy and thanks for watching.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ab_1330088278
F-35 partner nations ponder fighter's progress
Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
Published: Friday, March 02, 2012
A closed-door meeting of F-35 partner nations hosted at the Canadian Embassy in Washington has wrapped up with promises of similar gatherings in the future - but little else in the way of a public update on the troubled program.
A new report, however, indicates that while the Conservative government has been publicly supportive of the stealth fighter, it has been harbouring concerns about the increasing costs and delays afflicting the multi-billion-dollar project.
The meeting at the embassy in Washington on Friday was called a few weeks ago as the U.S. announced major changes to its F-35 order and worries mounted that other partner countries were planning to do the same.
Following the meeting, which saw Lockheed Martin and Pentagon officials briefing officials from Canada and other partner nations, Associate Defence Minister Fantino issued a statement declaring that "good progress" is being made on the F-35.
Little other information about the meeting, the state of the project or Canada's plan to purchase the stealth fighter were immediately available, and Fantino, who has faced questions in the House of Commons about Canada's plan to obtain the stealth fighter, didn't provide further clarity, saying only that "Canada has set a budget for replacement aircraft and we have been clear that we will operate within that budget."
While the Conservative government initially said Canada would purchase 65 F-35s at about $75 million each, it has since backed away from those statements. Rather, it says $9 billion has been set aside to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s, with another $7 billion for maintenance over 20 years.
The meeting in Washington was held the same day French-language newspaper La Presse reported that as the government was displaying strong public support for the F-35 in Canada last year, it was voicing concerns to the jet's manufacturer.
The Montreal newspaper obtained briefing notes prepared for Fantino and Defence Minister Peter MacKay in advance of the former's visit to Lockheed Martin's plant in Fort Worth, Texas, in November.
"The purpose of this visit is to demonstrate the commitment of our government to the JSF (joint strike fighter) program while communicating to our stakeholders Canada's concerns about costs, production schedules and the need to demonstrate transparency with the nations participating in the JSF program," reads one note dated Sept. 30, 2011.
Opposition parties seized on the report Friday as they accused the government of hiding the facts from Canadians.
"I think the internal memo that was revealed (Friday) in La Presse clearly shows that while the government has been giving us one line in the House of Commons about 'don't worry, be happy,' it's very clear that internally, any sensible person would understand that there are serious issues with the F-35," said Liberal interim leader Bob Rae.
"While the Conservatives vowed to Canadians that everything was fine, they said the opposite to Lockheed Martin," said NDP military procurement critic Christine Moore.
In addition to Canada and the U.S., the F-35 project includes Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Singapore and Japan.
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=6243277
Sukhoi by 2015 Russian military will be delivered 46 Su-35S fighters
February 26th, 2012 admin
the mass-produced Su-35S fighters
Russian "Sukhoi Corporation
According to Russian news agency reported on February 20, 2012] in accordance with national defense in 2015 order to supply 46 Su-35S aircraft.
Russia's United Aircraft Corporation CEO Mikhail Pogosyan more accurate to add to the information and product display Komsomolsk Amur Aviation Production Association to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Meanwhile, the entire enterprise must supply 48 Su-35S aircraft to the military, including two last year, delivered to the Department of Defense.
Pogosyan also said that plans to produce eight Su-35S, next year plans to produce 12, 12 production in the 2014 plan, in 2015 plans to produce 14.
Pogosyan does not rule out, in 2012, Komsomolsk Amur Aviation Production Association is expected to more than supply a fighter. Pogosyan said, planned for this year of eight Su-35S, the loan scheme now being developed, it is possible to increase the supply.
when it comes to business activities, the United Aircraft Building Corporation president Pogo said, Komsomolsk Amur Aviation Production Association in 2015 revenue growth to 30 billion rubles in 2012 planned income of 24 billion rubles. In addition, Pogosyan said, according to the defense-industrial complex development plans, plans to allocate 16 billion rubles of the Qingcheng Aviation Production Association for the Amur technological transformation.
http://www.cnmilitary.info/sukhoi-by-2015-russian-military-will-be-delivered-46-su-35s-fighters/
Russia Signs Contract for Navy MiG-29K Fighter
The Russian Defense Ministry has signed a contract with aircraft maker MiG for the delivery of 20 MiG-29K and four MiG-29KUB carrier-based fighter aircraft, MiG said on Wednesday.
"Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and MiG General Director Sergei Korotkov have signed the contract for the delivery of MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB carrier-based fighters," MiG said in a statement.
MiG wil deliver the aircraft from 2013-2015. The aircraft will operate from Russia's single serving carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, with the Northern Fleet based in Murmansk. The value of the deal has not been disclosed.
"The signature of this contract for delivery of these fighters is a real step in fulfilling our program for rearming the forces. The Naval Air Forces will get a modern combat aircraft as good as any in the world," Serdyukov was quoted as saying by his press service.
The contract will guarantee MiG a steady level of work in the medium term, Korotkov said.
The MiG-29K is a navalized variant of the MiG-29 land-based fighter, and has folding wings, an arrester tail-hook, strengthened airframe and multirole capability. It can be armed with a wide variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface weaponry. So far, the aircraft has only been exported to India for use on a refitted Russian-built carrier which is to be delivered at the end of this year.
The Admiral Kuznetsov currently operates Sukhoi Su-33 naval fighter aircraft.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120229/171607361.html
Ik snap alleen niet wat de Russen met een marineversie van Mig 29 moeten, terwijl men de Su33 heeft je zet er wat spullen van de Su35 op en je heb een toestel wat superieur is, wat de Mig29K en de FA18 E Super Hornet aan kan
Het is natuurlijk wel een sterk gemoderniseerd toestel vergeleken met de oudere MiG29's.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/03/2012 | 18:12 uur
Het is natuurlijk wel een sterk gemoderniseerd toestel vergeleken met de oudere MiG29's.
Dat wel maar als je op de Su33 spullen zet van de Su35 heb je een beter toestel
De Su-35 is een gemoderniseerde Su-27. De MiG-29K is een gemoderniseerde MiG-29.
Beide toestellen komen ongeveer uit hetzelfde tijdperk, het verschil is dat de Fulcrum een lichter toestel is. Misschien passen er daardoor wel extra aan boord? In ieder geval begrijp ik die obsessie met groot, groter, grootst die ik ook hier waarneem niet.
Ik denk dat de afmetingen zullen meespelen ivt mee te nemen aantallen en bovendien kan men zo ook samenwerken met Indie, dat blijkbaar de Mig al aanschaft. Ook dat biedt zekerheden en mogelijkheden en bespaart geld.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 03/03/2012 | 18:58 uur
Ik denk dat de afmetingen zullen meespelen ivt mee te nemen aantallen en bovendien kan men zo ook samenwerken met Indie, dat blijkbaar de Mig al aanschaft. Ook dat biedt zekerheden en mogelijkheden en bespaart geld.
heee Elzenga, your back ?
long time no hear
Ze gaan de eisen verlichten om hun doelen te bereiken, niet de bewenste range is haalbaar, maar de minimale range is goed genoeg ... :dead:
Pentagon Relaxes Two F-35 Performance Targets
Interesting report out of InsideDefense.com (free version) says Pentagon officials have relaxed the ground rules the F-35A model, the conventional-takeoff-and-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, can meet the minimum range goal for the aircraft -- the minimum, not the desired range.
On Feb. 14, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- in a previously unreported development -- agreed to loosen select key performance parameters (KPPs) for the JSF during a review of the program convened in advance of a high-level Feb. 21 Defense Acquisition Board meeting last month, at which the Pentagon aimed to reset many dimensions of the program, including cost and schedule.
Pentagon sources said a memorandum codifying the JROC decisions has not yet been signed by Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the JROC chair.
Sources familiar with the changes, however, said the JROC -- which also includes the service vice chiefs of staff -- agreed to adjust the "ground rules and assumptions" underlying the F-35A's 590-nautical-mile, combat-radius KPP.
Last April, the Pentagon reported to Congress in a selected acquisition report that "based on updated estimate of engine bleed," the F-35A would have a combat radius of 584 nautical miles, below its threshold -- set in 2002 -- of 590 nautical miles. (Editor's note: The desired or "objective" range was 690 nm).
To extend the F-35A's combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement.
Also, officials agreed to lengthen the minimum short takeoff distance for the F-35B, even though that model already will carry a smaller weapons load than initially planned.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: That's certainly a fool-proof way of ensuring performance targets are met...)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133255/pentagon-relaxes-f_35-performance-targets.html
En wie betaald de prijs voor het falen van controle over het JSF- programma ??
No-One Has Paid Price for F-35 Program Mismanagement (excerpt)
In any profession when there is malpractice, the person or persons who commit the offense are held accountable. They lose their jobs or their licenses, or resign from sheer embarrassment.
But this is apparently not the case in the military-industrial complex when it comes to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive program in the history of the Pentagon, whose unit costs have risen from $69 million to $159 million and whose initial operational capability has been set back at least five years.
It is no wonder that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, correctly called the F-35 program a scandal and tragedy.
On Feb. 6, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, finally admitted the real reason that the process of developing and producing the F-35 was so disastrous was "acquisition malpractice."
To be sure, the problems facing the F-35 have become apparent since Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract to build the plane in 2001.
But who will be held accountable?
McCain correctly demanded that Lockheed be held accountable for technical problems and cost spikes. But Kendall did not mention the role of people in the Defense Department, including himself, in the scandal, tragedy and malpractice.
In the summer of 2009, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates proudly announced that the most serious problems facing the F-35 were over, that most of the high-risk elements associated with the program were largely behind us, and that the plane was ready to move into full production.
And who advised Gates that these problems had been overcome? Ashton Carter, then the top weapons buyer, and Kendall, then his top deputy. (end of excerpt)
Click here for the full article, on the Federal Times website.
Citaat van: Harald op 05/03/2012 | 16:15 uur
En wie betaald de prijs voor het falen van controle over het JSF- programma ??
De belastingbetaler....want dat is het geld waarmee "ze" spelen.......als het nu eens hun eigen centen waren geweest......
Tijd dus voor een nieuw onderzoek, want niet alleen de targets gaan naar beneden, maar om iets voordeliger te vliegen wordt de "bandbreedte" waar in gevlogen wordt kleiner en dus kan men de F35 eerder op een bepaalde hoogte verwachten waardoor die eerder waar te nemen valt.
What If Japan Dumps Lockheed Martin?
By Navjot Kaur, The Motley Fool
Posted 3:24PM 03/05/12 Investing
Japan recently made its first public announcement that it may cancel its big order for Lockheed Martin's (NYS: LMT) F-35 fighter planes if the company adds to the pre-decided price or extends the delivery period of these planes. The cancellation can potentially wipe out more than $5 billion that Lockheed is expected to earn from the deal.
A flashback
After the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il late in 2011, uncertainty and instability cropped up in the Korean peninsula, an area where 1.7 million troops from North Korea, South Korea, and the U.S. are stationed. In the wake of North Korea improving its ballistic missiles and both Russia and China developing stealth fighters, Japan -- with the world's sixth-largest defense budget -- also planned on improving its air defense network.
Japan placed an order to buy 42 F-35 fighter jets, costing between $114 million and $122 million per unit. This marked the F-35's first win in a competitive tender, as well as Japan's costliest fighter jet procurement. The company is expected to begin delivery of the planes in 2016, beginning with four jets.
F-35 program in trouble
The F-35 is expected to become the centerpiece of military forces in the U.S. and other countries. Lockheed Martin is supposed to develop 2,400 F-35s for the U.S. and other nations, helped by industry peers Northrop Grumman (NYS: NOC) and BAE Systems. However, the program has run into a series of cost overruns and delays.
Recently, Lockheed faced a delay in orders from the U.S. and some order cancellations from Italy, owing to defense budget cuts in those nations. This has effectively slowed down the company's production and reduced its ability to generate bulk orders for supplies, thereby increasing the cost per aircraft. In fact, the cost of this program has now increased to $385 billion from $233 billion earlier, and it may go up even further.
This means Lockheed will now have to charge a higher price per aircraft, and there is a chance of delay in delivery, as well.
The Japanese dilemma
Given its uncertain economic condition and military buildup in neighboring countries, neither the delay nor the price hike will go down well in Japan. The Japanese military requires further confirmation and clarity on the cost and delivery details before summer, without which the country has threatened to cancel the F-35 order and look for a replacement instead. That's surely bad news for Lockheed.
What if Lockheed fails?
Naturally, the other bidders for this contract stand to gain. Lockheed's F-35 jet was short-listed over two lower-cost, combat-tested aircraft, including Boeing's (NYS: BA) F-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter GmbH's Typhoon fighter. Despite costing over $100 million per unit, the F-35 was selected because of its next-generation stealth design, which provides radar-evading facilities from the front and back of the aircraft.
The F-35s are supposed to replace Boeing F-4s, which were last assembled in Japan in 1981. In case Lockheed fails to clinch the deal, Boeing definitely has an edge over other competitors, as it is a tried-and-tested supplier of Japan's military requirements.
So which company will be Japan's ultimate choice? You can find out by adding these stocks to your Watchlist and staying ahead of the market. It's free!
•Add Lockheed Martin to My Watchlist.
•Add Boeing to My Watchlist.
•Add Northrop Grumman to My Watchlist.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/05/what-if-japan-dumps-lockheed-martin/
Second safe-to-fly Mirage combat aircraft crashes after jet engine failure
By Mail Today Reporter
Last updated at 7:45 PM on 5th March 2012
A second Mirage 2000 combat jet of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crashed on Monday, only 10 days after the first incident, unsettling the relatively good flight safety record of the aircraft in service for more than three decades.
Squadron Leader P. Raj and Flight Lieutenant Kanav had taken off from the Gwalior airbase on a training sortie in the afternoon but were soon forced to eject after an engine flameout while flying over Baman Bass village, 100km from Jaipur in Rajasthan.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2110606/Second-safe-fly-Mirage-combat-aircraft-crashes-jet-engine-failure.html#ixzz1oHadD691
MoD raises objections over Rafale's lifecycle cost
Chandan Nandy and Chethan Kumar, Bangalore, March 5, 2012, DHNS:
Date by which contract could be signed may be pushed back
Less than two months after the Indian Air Force (IAF) chose the French Rafale fighter jet for its medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) project, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has raised objections over its lifecycle cost, thereby pushing back the date by which the contract could be signed with the manufacturers, Dassault Aviation.
Top IAF sources said the two MoD members on the Contract Negotiations Committee (CNC) have questioned the low lifecycle cost that was earlier worked out in respect of the Rafale which was chosen over the Eurofighter Typhoon for the Air Force's MMRCA programme that envisages supply from Dassault 126 aircraft for a massive $20 billion, the largest open tender military aviation deal in the world.
The sources said that the "differences" that have cropped up among the CNC members are centred around the Rafale's lifecycle cost which the MoD representatives have declared to be far less than what it should be.
"There is no unanimity among the CNC members... and failing a unanimous decision, the Rafale acquisition could well get pushed back," sources said. While the maintenance cost of a Saab-Gripen single engine aircraft is over $3,000 per hour, that of the far superior Rafale could be estimated to be much higher.
The MoD representatives' assessment that a Rafale's lifecycle cost should be higher appears to have stemmed from the defence establishment's historical reliance on Russian aircraft. According to sources, the MoD officials on the CNC are "not satisfied" with the lower assessment of the lifecycle cost.
The MoD's disagreement with other CNC members comes at a time when the committee will also have to review other "items" involving the Rafale, including the cost of air frame, engine, avionics, weapons system and spare parts support among others. It is learnt that the MoD representatives raised their objections some time after the commercial bids were opened and continued to object to the low computation of a Rafale aircraft's lifecycle cost in some recent meetings of the CNC.
The MoD's maximalist stand is baffling especially after the government recently advised the armed forces to prioritise their capital acquisitions because 70 per cent of funds remain committed to approved purchases. In a situation where only 30 per cent of the available funds are left for purchases, the armed forces have been told "not to push for every deal."
In this context, IAF sources said that with the Air Force's immediate requirements for jet trainers, new engines for its fleet of Jaguar fighters and heavy and light helicopters as support for ground troops, to pay for the Rafale deal, if the contract has to be signed four to five months from now, "would be a tall order."
Dassault is in the process starting discussions with the vendors to get more clarity on the various offset possibilities and a final proposal on the same is expected to be completed by April-May. The company expects the finalisation of the award by the end of this year.
But a less optimistic senior defence ministry source said that "the 30 per cent funds corpus will not allow accommodating the MMRCA and the funds constraint will leave a big question mark over the fate of the deal," adding that the contract signing stage with Dassault Aviation is "far away".
When contacted over phone, MoD official spokesman Sitangshu Kar said, "Everything is progressing smoothly. However, I do not have an update over the developments related to the MMRCA over the last fortnight or so."
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/232395/mod-raises-objections-over-rafales.html
U.S. placates Brazil over canceled deal
March 6, 2012
Senior U.S. officials have talked with the Brazilian government in a damage-control exercise after the U.S. Air Force canceled a contract for Brazilian light attack aircraft.
The cancellation comes at a time when the Boeing Co. is campaigning to win a multibillion-dollar Brazilian government contract for up to 36 F-18 fighter jets in a competition with France's Dassault Rafale and Sweden's Saab AB's Gripen NG.
In contrast, the contract for Embraer's Super Tucano light attack aircraft is worth $355 million, likely to increase to $1 billion.
Brazilian officials reacted angrily to the cancellation and warned it could affect other defense relations. Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer said it hoped it could still win the deal.
The U.S. Air Force awarded the contract for 20 Embraer Super Tucano light aircraft for deployment in Afghanistan last year but rescinded it this month, saying it wasn't satisfied with some of the paperwork.
The award was challenged by U.S. manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft Corp. which claimed its AT-6 aircraft was wrongly excluded from the selection process.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met with Brazilian government officials to reassure them the Super Tucano could still be in the competition and explained the cancellation as part of an internal process.
After the legal challenge by Hawker Beechcraft Corp. the award is under investigation and will most likely be revived, with Embraer and its rivals again invited to submit new bids.
Although Burns said the Super Tucano and the FX-2 jet fighter competition are "two separate issues," the Brazilian side is keen to find linkages between the two as a way of putting pressure to win the Super Tucano contract.
Embraer is in partnership with Sierra Nevada Corp. for the Super Tucano, which the Brazilian manufacturer sees as a key to its plans to expand the market for the light attack aircraft in North America and beyond in competition with U.S. rivals.
Both Brazilian government officials and Embraer said they were surprised by the cancellation.
"Along with its U.S. partner, Sierra Nevada Corp., Embraer participated in the LAS selection process providing, on time and without exceptions, all the required documentation," Embraer said in a statement.
"The decision in favor of the Super Tucano, announced on Dec. 30, 2011, by the U.S. Air Force, was a choice for the best product with proven performance in action and all the necessary capabilities to meet client demands," the aircraft manufacturer said.
"Embraer remains committed to offer the best solution to the U.S. Air Force and will await further clarification on the subject to decide next steps, in consultation with its partner, SNC," Embraer said.
Analysts said Brazilian hints at a linkage between the Super Tucano deal and the FX-2 jet fighter competition could complicate revival of the process for selecting a light attack aircraft for Afghanistan operations. The Hawker Beechcraft Corp. challenge to last year's award is still going through the legal process, which makes an early resolution of the light aircraft deal unlikely.
"This development is not considered conducive to strengthening relations between the countries on defense affairs," a Brazilian External Affairs Ministry statement said, in the clearest hint yet that the government is prepared to back any new bid by Embraer.
Copyright 2012 U.P.I.
All Rights Reserved
Boeing has new partner for F-X2 bid in Brazil
Boeing is attempting to tip the scales in its favour in Brazil's F-X2 fighter contest by entering into an alliance with avionics supplier AEL Sistemas, a local subsidiary of Israel's Elbit Systems.
Because Boeing has few export prospects for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the company is making a strong pitch for the Brazilian market, says analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group. Boeing's new alliance with AEL, whose products feature heavily in Brazil's flagship Embraer KC-390 transport/tanker programme, is no coincidence.
"It could play a significant role," in securing a Super Hornet victory, Aboulafia says.
Boeing has selected Elbit to provide a large area display to replace multiple smaller screens for the Super Hornet and the privately developed F-15SE Silent Eagle. Elbit, in turn, has committed to investing in the development of advanced cockpit avionics at AEL.
This arrangement should help fulfil some of the technology transfer that Brazil wants as part of any fighter deal.
"Boeing and its Tier 1 supplier partners are committed to bringing key technologies to Brazil," says Boeing military aircraft chief Chris Chadwick. "Through the projects identified for AEL Sistemas, Boeing and Elbit support Brazil's objective of developing the aerospace capabilities of local industry."
Under a memorandum of understanding signed between Boeing and Elbit on 5 March, AEL will participate in the development, production and support for portions of the large area display. The effort will also pave the way to establish an "advanced cockpit technology centre of excellence" in Brazil. That would allow AEL to expand its avionics offerings to other fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, according to Boeing.
Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is pitted against Saab's Gripen E/F and Dassault's Rafale in a competition that some believe the airframer must win if it harbours any hope of securing additional foreign customers for the US Navy's current strike fighter.
While the French-built Rafale was once seen as a favourite under the previous Brazilian government, the current administration of President Dilma Rousseff seems to be committed to an open competition.
"She's made it pretty clear this is going to be an open contest," Aboulafia says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-has-new-partner-for-f-x2-bid-in-brazil-369145/
Schwartz Defends Reduced Combat Radius for F-35
The U.S. Air Force's top uniformed officer played down changes to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's requirements that allow the multibillion-dollar jet to meet flight test goals.
Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee that reducing the combat radius of the F-35A by five miles is more cost-effective than modifying the fighter to meet performance goals set a decade ago.
"The difference between the key performance parameter for distance versus the estimate for performance is five miles," Schwartz said at the March 6 hearing. "The question to me is: How much do we want to invest in order to recover that five-mile margin? It was a judgment call and I think not an unreasonable one."
Last week, InsideDefense.com reported that the Pentagon had shortened the combat radius requirements for the F-35A, the Air Force version of the fighter jet. The website also reported that DoD officials had increased the take-off length of the of the F-35B, the Marine Corps version.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120306/DEFREG02/303060008/Schwartz-Defends-Reduced-Combat-Radius-F-35?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Dit antwoord is gebaseerd op een halve waarheid
gewenste range = 615 miles
eis range = 590 miles
werkelijke range 585 miles
en die eis is 10 jaar terug ... ach die is niet meer zo relevant
Citaat van: Harald op 07/03/2012 | 08:28 uur
Schwartz Defends Reduced Combat Radius for F-35
Last week, InsideDefense.com reported that the Pentagon had shortened the combat radius requirements for the F-35A, the Air Force version of the fighter jet. The website also reported that DoD officials had increased the take-off length of the of the F-35B, the Marine Corps version.
Dit antwoord is gebaseerd op een halve waarheid
gewenste range = 615 miles
eis range = 590 miles
werkelijke range 585 miles
en die eis is 10 jaar terug ... ach die is niet meer zo relevant
Die 590 zeemijlen is de minimum eis, die bekend is in het publieke domein. De F-35A zit daar nu maar 5 nm onder, peanuts dus.
Het werkelijke gevechtsbereik van de F-35A ligt gelukkig veel hoger ;)
Bloed hier iets moois?
Helaas kan ik de rest van het bericht niet lezen/plaatsen.
Saudi Defence Ministry, Saab and JAS 39 Gripen
Posted on: Wed, Mar 07, 2012
The Saudi Defence Ministry is said to be discussing a workable plan to look further into the possibility of buying the Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighter jet for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF).
http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/Saudi_Defence_Ministry_Saab_and_JAS_39_Gripen/2541
Leuke F16 foto's uit Zuid Korea, zeker 48 kisten in formatie op de startbaan. de zgn "Elephant Walk"
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4532.html
Citaat van: dudge op 07/03/2012 | 16:07 uur
Zeker gave foto.
Zij zijn blijkbaar nog in de koude oorlog blijven hangen. 30 toestellen is meer dan genoeg!
Citaat van: IPA NG op 07/03/2012 | 16:58 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 07/03/2012 | 16:07 uur
Zeker gave foto.
Zij zijn blijkbaar nog in de koude oorlog blijven hangen. 30 toestellen is meer dan genoeg!
Dat is een Zweeds perspectief. :devil:
Citaat van: dudge op 07/03/2012 | 16:07 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/03/2012 | 14:26 uur
Leuke F16 foto's uit Zuid Korea, zeker 48 kisten in formatie op de startbaan. de zgn "Elephant Walk"
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4532.html
Zeker gave foto.
En mogelijk de volledige omvang van de KLu in de nabije toekomst....... :(
Citaat van: Elzenga op 07/03/2012 | 17:01 uur
En mogelijk de volledige omvang van de KLu in de nabije toekomst....... :(
Dat zijn zeker de "mindere" perspectieven.
Ter info: op het vliegveld van Konya (TU) bevinden zich sinds 1 maart ook grote aantallen Vipers. 8)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 07/03/2012 | 13:12 uur
Bloed hier iets moois?
Helaas kan ik de rest van het bericht niet lezen/plaatsen.
Saudi Defence Ministry, Saab and JAS 39 Gripen
Posted on: Wed, Mar 07, 2012
The Saudi Defence Ministry is said to be discussing a workable plan to look further into the possibility of buying the Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighter jet for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF).
http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/Saudi_Defence_Ministry_Saab_and_JAS_39_Gripen/2541
Wat is de reden dat de Saudi´s Saab Gripens willen?
Citaat van: Ace1 op 07/03/2012 | 22:27 uur
Wat is de reden dat de Saudi´s Saab Gripens willen?
Geen idee.. dit (deel van het) bericht kwam voor mij als een verrassing. Misschien dat de Saudi's geinteresseerd zijn in een capabele "light" optie ter aanvuling op F15, en de EF.
Ze hebben natuurlijk nog 100+ Tornado's, een aantal (de air defence versie) gaan terug naar de UK als inruil voor de EF, daarnaast zal een behoorlijk deel vervangen worden door iets anders.
Stel dat ze de Gripen (NG) kiezen als "light" optie dan wordt de SA luchtmacht wel heel gemêleerd (en interessant):
150+ F15s
72 EF
xx Gripens NG
Je zou haast stellen dat er dan ook nog iets van Russische makelij (SU35/PAK-FA of zo iets) wordt gekocht om het beste uit de fighter wereld te bezitten waardoor ze nog minder afhankelijk zijn van de politieke grillen van het moment.
Maar misschien weet iemand op dit forum meer...
Gripen voor Maleisie ?
Gripen: Long-Term, Cost Effective Multi-role Combat Aircraft
BANGKOK --- As Malaysia listed the Swedish-made Gripen multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) as one of its possible choices for its new generation fighter jets, Saab, the manufacturer of the aircraft, is harping on its long-term cost effectiveness.
Saab media relations manager Peter Liander said the cost of the whole life cycle of its MRCA in terms of maintenance, operations and flying was more effective as compared to other MRCA of its class.
"Generally, potential buyers should not just look at the buying price only, but also the cost for its whole life cycle," he told Bernama at the Defense and Security 2012 exhibition here.
Malaysia is considering replacing its ageing 10 Russian-made MiG-29 aircraft of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) as the service period of the fighter jet had ended and needed to be replaced.
Apart from Gripen, others such as European-made Eurofighter Typhoon, American-made FA-18 Super Hornet and Russian-made Sukhoi Su-35 were reported to be under the Malaysian Defence Ministry's radar for consideration, too.
Previously, Malaysian Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Zahid Hamidi had mentioned that the purchase of the new fighter jet would depend on the government's financial capability.
Without disclosing the price of Gripen as it depends on the specification needs of the respective country, Liander said the company had succeeded in producing fighter jets with high performance at low cost.
Gripen is currently in the inventory of air forces of Sweden, South Africa, Hungary, Czech Republic and Thailand, as well as a test pilot school in the United Kingdom.
"Generally, they get what they need at competitive prices," said Liander.
Apart from Gripen, he said, Saab also provided a complete air defence package such as airborne early warning system and a dedicated command and control system, together with the fighter jet.
As Gripen had made its debut in this region through the procurement of the new generation fighter jets by Thailand, the company was eyeing to further spread its wings in this region.
"Thailand could be an important reference on Gripen in this region as the country took delivery of six aircrafts early last year, and another six next year," said Liander.
According to defence industry record, Asean's 10 south east Asian nations defence procurement totalled about US$25 billion (about RM75 billion) annually.
On the Thailand front, Liander said, the company was in partnership with a local manufacturer to produce data link systems as part of its technology transfer programme.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133326/saab-touts-gripen-to-malaysia%2C-region.html
Budget aannames van Noorwegen :
2008 : $ 68 miljoen per JSF = € 51,7 miljoen per stuk
2012 : $ 194 miljoen per JSF = € 147,4 miljoen per stuk
een verhoging van 285 % !!
Norway Upbeat on F-35; Plans to Order About 50 (excerpt)
Norway's No. 2 defense official said he was more upbeat about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program than in a long time after visiting a test site in California last week and meeting with the eight other partners on the program.
Defense State Secretary Roger Ingebrigsten said on Monday that Norway was finalizing its plans to buy "approximately 50 fighters," but did not expect any significant cost increases to its order.
.../...
"We think that we are going to pay close to what we said we would in 2008," Ingebrigsten told Reuters by telephone after returning from his U.S. visit. "The main approach will be the same as it has been since 2008."
He declined to provide details ahead of the Norwegian government's submission to parliament in two weeks. Previous plans called for Norway to buy 56 aircraft for 61 billion Norwegian crown ($10.89 billion), in undiscounted 2011 crowns, or 72 billion crowns when a greater contingency is counted.
"I can't say we're going to do exactly what we said in 2008 but our plan is to procure approximately 50 fighters," he said. (end of excerpt)
(EDITOR'S NOTE: State Secretary Ingebrigsten is apparently now happy to spend 61 billion kroner ($10.89 billion) to buy 56 aircraft which, simple arithmetic shows, implies a price of about $194 million for each F-35.
In December 2008, when it announced its choice of the F-35, Norway's MoD stated a total price of 18 billion kroner for 48 aircraft, then worth about $68 million per aircraft.
Consequently, Norway's price tag has more than tripled in 4 years.) [/b]
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133330/norway-upbeat-on-f_35-despite-huge-price-hike-since-2008.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2E8E5CLX20120306
Even simpel :
240 F-18E/F , 0 toestellen keert terug naar de basis
240 F-22, 139 toestellen keren terug
240 (A)F-35, 30 toestellen keren terug
interessant om te lezen !!
Australian Committee Hearing Reveals Details of F-35 Performance in Wargame
PARIS --- The Australian Parliament's Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has just released a transcript of a Feb. 7, 2012 hearing during which it took evidence on the F-35 program by noted opponents of the program, representing the Air Power Australia think-tank and a private computer simulation firm, RepSim Pty Ltd.
Part of the hearing describes the outcome of a famous – but disputed – simulation of F-18E and F-35 fighters engaging in combat against Chinese air force fighters carried out by the Rand Corporation. The outcome is even more disastrous for the Western fighters than previously reported.
A link to the full transcript of the hearing is provided at bottom.
Mr Christopher Laurie Mills, Director, RepSim Pty Ltd:
(.../...) So we set up the scenarios that RAND Corporation had been asked to examine, which was mass attacks of Chinese fighters and response by Super Hornet and F35. For example—and I have the video here but is too long to show the committee—we had 24 on 24 with the Western side supported by tankers and AWAC aircraft—airborne early and warning control.
We sent out 240 F35As against the C35S, which is not as powerful as the PAK FA, and 30 came back—out of 240.
We sent out 240 Hornets and not a single Hornet came back.
We sent out 240 F22s—139 came back, and only 33 Sukhois came back.
These results have been compared with a rare public disclosure and they show that the model is scaled correctly. It is putting it in the right order. You would not expect an F35 to be able to take on an advanced fighter like the C35. Its correct nomenclature should not be F35; it should be A35. It is an attack aircraft. To reinvent it as an air superiority weapon is a complete mistake. It is not.
The F22 was designed for air superiority and air dominance. It was designed to be there to support the A35 with the sorts of things that Dr Kopp and Mr Goon have been talking about.
It is pretty serious stuff when you send out 240 aeroplanes and only 30 come back—I must emphasise, using the same but superior model that we were using to do much the same work inside Defence linearly.
CHAIR: With respect to your simulation exercise in that example, where fewer came back, did you incorporate in that exercise ground support and any other factor that might complement that particular war game?
Mr Price: They were sitting over the ocean off Taiwan. This is the simulation required by RAND. The Super Hornets had come off carriers and come out of Okinawa. The confrontation was mainly to the north of Taiwan. The only requirement that RAND had that must be met in terms of developing a situation was its hypothesis that in 2018 the Chinese would have developed high frequency over-the-horizon radar which would defeat the stealth characteristics of both the F22 and the F35.
The Super Hornet has got no stealth at all. At the end of the day, it is a technological lemon for a modern air-to-air combat aircraft. It has got one speed, so it will fall out of the sky as soon as you shoot it.
The issue for the other two was that they had stealth, which in the endgame may reduce the attrition based upon an ability to defeat the weapons, because there it is not aircraft on aircraft but weapon on aircraft. The issue for us was to develop a simulation such that it represented what the environment would be like should the Chinese be able to provide targeting information at the course level to attacking aircraft that would enable them to use sensors other than radar to detect and engage the F22 and the F35.
In combat, the back end of the F35 on afterburner is something like 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. In terms of temperature, aluminium combusts at 1100. You are talking about something really, really hot. If you have got a dirty big sensor on the front of your SU35 or your PAK FA or whatever, it lights up like Christmas lights and there is nothing you can do about it. And the plume, because of the symmetric exhaust, is all over the place. It is not shielded, it is not ducted in any useful way. So from an IRUV point of view, the advantage that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, you name it, can have is that they have a range of different seeker types on their weapons that can engage the aircraft.
We are basically limited to medium range with one type of technology. Short range we have an IR missile, the Sidewinder or the ASRAAM, but at the end of the day you cannot get into a position to fire the thing before you are shot by the adversary's weapons. That was the outcome of the analysis of the exercise.
CHAIR: Just to clarify this, essentially it was an aircraft-on-aircraft exercise? With no support of the—
Mr Price : We had four AWACs in support. They were the first things targeted by the SU35s in the engagement. They had a life expectancy of about 17 minutes. Mind you, that is eight minutes better than what they have got in Europe.
Then it came to the tankers. The tankers were all rolled up, but they generally got rolled up after the fighters had been engaged. The issue for the F35 in particular, was that because the aircraft is aerodynamically poor it is not able to engage very fast leakers that can get through a screen and take out the AWACs and your tankers. Once you take out the AWACs or the tanker—the JSF at its full capacity is burning something like 3.38 kilos of fuel per second—unless you have a flying gas station behind you, going into high-end combat an F35 has a very short time span activity.
Mr Goon : Are you referring to what is referred to as the 'systems with systems' approach to air combat?
CHAIR: No, what I am referring to is that there is no normal war game. There is always additional activities and capabilities used in an attack on your enemy. I am asking, in the example that was provided by Mr Mills in that particular exercise, about what was factored in—was sea support, or whatever the case might be, from an aircraft carrier and those sorts of things, or land missiles, in respect to being involved in the particular exercise to eliminate one another?
Mr Mills: There were actually land missiles on Taiwan-Patriots—and there were HQ9s and SA20s on the Chinese mainland. Every now and again you would see an aircraft chasing a Sukhoi back to the base and being lost through the SAMS. There were Chinese HF radars providing functions something like our JORN there. In fact we tried to make it a clean aircraft-on-aircraft environment but we also had to make it realistic.
So we had to array all the forces. So you had every element that was on Kadena. You had a carrier task group there providing communication support and every now and again you would see a fight over Taiwan and something would get lost in there because they had SAMS. So, yes, it was a full environment but we deliberately set it up because RAN's interest—their scenario—was: what happens when you get massed aircraft on massed aircraft? That was what we were focusing on.
If you want to talk about the things that Dr Kopp is talking about, that is very straightforward. We have got all of the missile systems modelled, and if you want to see how an F35 would perform against a modern SA20, 21, 22, 23 type of environment that would be very straightforward.
.../...
Senator JOHNSTON: We can go on like this for a while, Chair. I think the committee would really appreciate, Mr Price, if you could list the assumptions that were made with respect to this engagement. I think it would be very helpful for the members to understand exactly, because they can read the RAND report—that is a public document—and they can see what you have done and that will give—
Mr Price : No, sorry; you will not read a RAND report of that activity. That activity was done separately to the Pacific Vision war game, and the analyst who did that was subsequently released from RAND because it never existed. (end of excerpt)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/verbatim/4/133273/f_35-fares-worse-in-rand-wargame.html
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2Faef69d01-ae91-41f7-9aab-04d2781b21c8%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2Faef69d01-ae91-41f7-9aab-04d2781b21c8%2F0000%22
Citaat van: Harald op 08/03/2012 | 11:20 uur
Even simpel :
240 F-18E/F , 0 toestellen keert terug naar de basis
240 F-22, 139 toestellen keren terug
240 (A)F-35, 30 toestellen keren terug
interessant om te lezen !!
Het maakt we wel nieuwsgier naar hoe de Europese concurrentie het er in deze simulatie van afgebracht zou hebben (EF/Rafale/SGNG)
Ik vermoed een heel stuk beter.
Blijf vermoeden......
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/03/2012 | 12:04 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 08/03/2012 | 11:20 uur
Even simpel :
240 F-18E/F , 0 toestellen keert terug naar de basis
240 F-22, 139 toestellen keren terug
240 (A)F-35, 30 toestellen keren terug
interessant om te lezen !!
Het maakt we wel nieuwsgier naar hoe de Europese concurrentie het er in deze simulatie van afgebracht zou hebben (EF/Rafale/SGNG)
Ik vermoed een heel stuk beter.
De AWACS in het Pacific War worden uit de lucht geschoten na 17 minuten, in de Europa War worden ze na 9 minuten uit de lucht geschoten, dus de Air-war in Europa zal veel heftiger en sneler en korter zijn dan in de Pacific.
De verliezen zullen dus ook veel groter zijn.
De AWACS en tankers zullen het niet overleven, dan heeft een (A)F-35 een beperkte range !! en vooral bij het gebruik van de afterburner om zo snel mogelijk weg te komen
CHAIR: Just to clarify this, essentially it was an aircraft-on-aircraft exercise? With no support of the—
Mr Price : We had four AWACs in support. They were the first things targeted by the SU35s in the engagement. They had a life expectancy of about 17 minutes. Mind you, that is eight minutes better than what they have got in Europe.
Then it came to the tankers. The tankers were all rolled up, but they generally got rolled up after the fighters had been engaged. The issue for the F35 in particular, was that because the aircraft is aerodynamically poor it is not able to engage very fast leakers that can get through a screen and take out the AWACs and your tankers. Once you take out the AWACs or the tanker—the JSF at its full capacity is burning something like 3.38 kilos of fuel per second—unless you have a flying gas station behind you, going into high-end combat an F35 has a very short time span activity.
En dat snel wegkomen met afterburner eist ook weer z'n tol.
In combat, the back end of the F35 on afterburner is something like 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. In terms of temperature, aluminium combusts at 1100. You are talking about something really, really hot. If you have got a dirty big sensor on the front of your SU35 or your PAK FA or whatever, it lights up like Christmas lights and there is nothing you can do about it. And the plume, because of the symmetric exhaust, is all over the place. It is not shielded, it is not ducted in any useful way. So from an IRUV point of view, the advantage that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, you name it, can have is that they have a range of different seeker types on their weapons that can engage the aircraft.
We are basically limited to medium range with one type of technology. Short range we have an IR missile, the Sidewinder or the ASRAAM, but at the end of the day you cannot get into a position to fire the thing before you are shot by the adversary's weapons. That was the outcome of the analysis of the exercise.
Citaat van: dudge op 08/03/2012 | 16:06 uur
Dus inderdaad een belangrijk punt, het zit hem niet alleen in de kwaliteiten van het toestel, maar ook voor een (groot) deel in de kwaliteiten van de piloot, de wapens aan boord, en de ondersteunende infrastructuur.
Wat dus ook voor je potentiele `tegenstanders`geldt!! Als die op dit secundaire vlak weinig presteren ten opzichten van jezelf is het argument dat je het beste toestel moet hebben (hintend naar de JSF) dus van minder waarde. Het hele totale plaatje moet beter zijn....dat kan dan dus ook met een toestel als zeg de Gripen NG of de laatste versie van de F16 al dik het geval zijn.....
UPDATE 2-US delays will raise F-35 fighter price, Japan deal unchanged
Fri, 9th Mar 2012 04:35
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, March 8 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday acknowledg
ed that a delay in U.S. orders for 179 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets would raise the cost of each new warplane in the short term, but said Lockheed still needed to keep driving down its production costs.
Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, who heads the Pentagon's F-35 program office, said he had briefed the eight international partners about the effect of the production slowdown, and they affirmed their commitment to the program at a meeting last week.
The Pentagon is postponing the orders to save $15.1 billion through fiscal year 2017, and allow more time for development and testing, a move that has prompted its foreign partners to rethink their own orders.
Venlet declined to identify the scope of the expected cost increase, noting that further details would be released as part of a Pentagon report to Congress later this month.
He said the partner countries -- Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands -- remained committed to the program, although some would likely postpone their own orders as a result of the U.S. move.
Italy has already announced plans to cut its total order of 131 planes to 90 planes, a reduction of 30 percent.
Venlet said the total U.S. planned order remained unchanged at 2,443 fighters for the Air Force, the Marines and the Navy.
JAPAN DEAL 'FIRM'
Venlet said he had assured Japan, one of the first two foreign countries outside the partnership to buy the jet, that the terms of its agreement in December to buy 42 F-35 fighter jets would not change as a result of the U.S. move.
'Their deal is firm,' he told a defense conference hosted by Credit Suisse and defense consultant Jim McAleese.
Japanese Defense Minister Naoki Tanaka last week said Japan could cancel orders for F-35 jets if the price rose. Japan is due to pay 9.9 billion yen ($121.62 million) per fighter for an initial four F-35s scheduled for delivery by March 2017.
'We can look national leadership in the eye and say, 'Your deal is good, with the (terms) that you were offered,'' Venlet told reporters after his speech at the conference, referring to his conversations with Japanese leaders.
He said Washington was in talks with Singapore, South Korea and other countries about additional foreign military sales of the F-35, which would help offset delays in orders from the United States and its international partners.
He said Israel had expressed interest in a second batch of planes beyond its first order for 19 fighters. 'I know that that's out there as an aspiration. We haven't entered any detailed financial discussions with them on it,' he said.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told reporters the Marine Corps variant of the F-35, which can land vertically like a helicopter, was also seeing more foreign interest after being removed from a two-year 'probation' a year ahead of schedule.
PENTAGON PRESSING LOCKHEED TO DRIVE DOWN PRICE
Venlet said the Pentagon was in talks with Lockheed about a contract for a fifth batch of 30 planes, but gave no details.
He said Washington expected the price of those planes to be lower than in the last contract signed with Lockheed, despite the current plateau in annual production levels.
'Both parties know that there's an expected benefit year by year, even though you're flat, and I'm confident that we'll come to a fair and reasonable deal,' he said.
Separately, the Air Force said it expects to start operational use of the F-35 later than its previous target of 2016, given the Pentagon's plan to slow down production.
'It will move to the right,' Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told the same conference.
Carlisle said the F-35 would reach 'initial operational capability' only after achieving certain milestones, including software development and completion of operational testing, something now expected 'later in the decade.'
The production slowdown has been widely expected to result in delays in operational use of the new aircraft, but Carlisle's comments provided the first clear indication that the Air Force will not start using its new warplanes until after 2016.
Venlet admitted that delays in operational use could be problematic for some foreign buyers, but said the plane had moved beyond the design phase and was showing solid progress.
He said there was still work to do on software development, the pilot helmet that displays all flight and weapons systems data, a tailhook that catches the carrier variant upon landing, vents for dumping fuel before landing, and airframe durability.
But all those items were normal during the course of developing a new fighter plane, and nothing stood out as an 'extraordinary' challenge to the program, Venlet said. He said the program had a significant 'reserve' to deal with any new issues that arose 'without driving the program into a ditch.'
Carlisle said the Air Force would carry out service life extensions and add capabilities to existing F-16 fighters to bridge the gap, but had not changed its plan to buy a total of 1,763 F-35 fighters over the next decades. ($1 = 81.4000 Japanese yen)
(COPYRIGHT
Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.
Citaat van: Harald op 08/03/2012 | 10:38 uur
Budget aannames van Noorwegen :
2008 : $ 68 miljoen per JSF = € 51,7 miljoen per stuk
2012 : $ 194 miljoen per JSF = € 147,4 miljoen per stuk
een verhoging van 285 % !!
Norwegian Government Parties Split on F-35 CostsHELSINKI — Norway's center-left government is showing signs of division on the recurring issue of the cost and affordability of the armed force's fighter replacement program (FRP).
The Socialist Left, one of three parties in the rainbow administration, has told its coalition partners that it will oppose the continuation of the FRP in its present form if the final acquisition cost rises above $7.13 billion.
The government informed parliament on March 5 of its intention to reach a final decision on the level of funding needed by mid-April, based on the latest cost data from Lockheed's Joint Strike Fighter program.
Moreover, another coalition party, the Center, has warned that it will only commit to supporting increased funding for the F-35 project if a firm cost for the program can be established before a final decision is made.
"Ideally, we would rather that the acquisition cost of the F-35s did not exceed our annual defense budget of $7.2 million. We must remember that Norway has other, more important fundamental funding needs, such as the setting aside of more monies to cover future higher expenditures that will be required to cover the country's aging population, climate change, and education," said Bård Vegar Solhjell, the Socialist Left's parliamentary leader.
The positions adopted by the Center and the Socialist Left are in stark contrast to the Labor Party, the biggest of the three coalition partners, which favors approving a higher budget for the FRP even if acquisition costs escalate.
The Norwegian government is also divided along party lines on how best to restructure the Air Force's network of air bases as part of a major capital investment project carrying an estimated cost of between $2.5 billion and $3 billion.
The latest indicators suggest that the government will approve an armed forces plan to locate a new hub for the F-35s at the Air Force's existing Orland Air Base near Trondheim, with a smaller forward air base at Evenes in Nordland county inside the Arctic circle.
The political division on the FRP has increased the expectation that Norway may reduce its aircraft order. Norway's initial cost estimates covered the acquisition of 56 F-35s. This could be reduced to 50 F-35s and four trainer aircraft.
Norway's Ministry of Defence has maintained that the final bill for the F-35 acquisition program will remain close to the cost estimate of $6.7 billion it reached when the U.S. aircraft was selected in late 2008. That figure excludes weapon systems.
"We expect the price that we pay will be close to the calculation we arrived at in 2008," said Roger Ingebrigsten, Norway's state defense secretary.
The MoD has estimated the lifetime cost of operating 56 F-35s at some $26 billion. The actual cost will depend on which logistics and maintenance systems are employed, and from which air bases the new aircraft will operate.http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120308/DEFREG01/303080005/Norwegian-Government-Parties-Split-F-35-Costs?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Boeing Gets $11.4 Billion Piece of Saudi F-15 Deal
The U.S. Air Force awarded an $11.4 billion contract to Boeing to cover 84 new F-15SA fighter aircraft, systems and munitions that will be sold to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Defense Department announced March 8.
The contract represents a large chunk of a total $29.4 billion foreign military sale (FMS) originally announced Dec. 30. The additional $18 billion will pay for 70 older F-15S aircraft, as well as support services.
A slew of foreign military sales to countries in the Middle East were announced at the end of 2011, including deals with Iraq, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. The region is once again in the spotlight as the U.S. draws up potential attack plans against Syria and Iran.
By law, FMS deals are only made when considered advantageous to U.S. national security.
The construction of the new aircraft is set to be completed by October 2020.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120308/DEFREG02/303080011/Boeing-Gets-11-4-Billion-Piece-Saudi-F-15-Deal?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Dassault Says Indian Fighter Jet Deal Secure as Talks Intensify
By Andrea Rothman - Mar 9, 2012 1:01 AM GMT+0100
.
Dassault Aviation SA (AM) is confident that an accord to supply at least 126 Rafale combat planes to India will cross all hurdles as the French company intensifies negotiations to clinch the first-ever export deal for the jet.
Dassault and India are now in final talks to conclude details of the contract, after the Rafale was given preference over the competing Eurofighter jet last month, Chief Executive Officer Charles Edelstenne said in an interview in Paris. Negotiations may wrap up by the end of the year, he said.
Selling the Rafale to India would mark a major victory for Edelstenne, who has had to rely on France as the aircraft's sole customer. The Indian backing for the $11 billion contract has boosted Dassault's hopes it can also prevail in Brazil, and help raise production rates of the Rafale that are now hovering at the minimum of one a month, the CEO said.
"For 15 years, we've been saying the Rafale costs less than the Eurofighter," Edelstenne said. "Now it's the Indians who are saying it."
Dassault will prevail against the Eurofighter in India because in every competition where the two jets have been in direct competition, the French model gained higher rankings, even if it ultimately didn't win the final deal, the CEO said.
Edelstenne said Dassault can easily boost production to two or three Rafales a month or more if needed, depending on what other orders the company may win. Beyond Brazil and the United Arab Emirates, Dassault is also pitching the plane to other export prospects he said, including Malaysia.
Fighting Back
Dassault has already delivered 106 of 180 fighters ordered by France, which has said it will order 286 planes over the lifetime of the plane. Edelstenne said India's naming Dassault as lowest-bidder would help generally export prospects .
British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he would keep fighting for the Eurofighter Typhoon, partly built by BAE Systems Plc (BA/), to get back into the contest. Louis Gallois, the CEO of European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. (EAD), said yesterday the only way for his company to get back to into the contest is if talks between Dassault and the Indian side fall through.
Until India decided on the Rafale, Dassault had failed to win any export contracts for the aircraft, losing out in a half dozen competitions to countries including Singapore, South Korea, Morocco, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.
U.S. manufacturers beat Dassault in all those contests except in Switzerland, where Saab AB (SAABB)'s Gripen has been pre- selected. The company still hasn't given up in Switzerland, Edelstenne said, citing a review of the decision process.
Long Relations
Dassault's relations with India date back 60 years. India was the very first export customer for Dassault, ordering 71 Ouragans in June 1953, and India has purchased most Dassault models sold since. India replaced the Ouragans with Dassault's Mystere IV A in 1957, procuring 104 in 1957 and using them in 1961 for air strikes against the Portuguese colony of Daman.
The French company will gradually turn over the manufacturing of its plane for the Indian market to local businesses because that was a requirement India had set for all competitors, he said. Dassault will provide the assistance required to do that.
"Little by little, the whole plane will come to be produced in India within 10 years," he said. "We are open to all transfers of technology, I don't fear competition."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/dassault-says-indian-fighter-jet-deal-secure-as-talks-intensify.html
Security experts admit China stole secret fighter jet plans
From:The Australian
March 12, 201212:00AM
CHINESE spies hacked into computers belonging to BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence company, to steal details about the design, performance and electronic systems of the West's latest fighter jet, senior security figures have disclosed.
The Chinese exploited vulnerabilities in BAE's computer defences to steal vast amounts of data on the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a multinational project to create a plane that will give the West air supremacy for years to come, according to the sources.
The hacking attack has prompted fears that the fighter jet's advanced radar capabilities could have been compromised.
Details of the attack on BAE have been a closely guarded secret within Britain's intelligence community since it was first uncovered nearly three years ago. But they were disclosed by a senior BAE executive during a private dinner in London for cyber security experts late last year.
One of those present said: "The BAE man said that for 18 months, Chinese cyber attacks had taken place against BAE and had managed to get hold of plans of one of its latest fighters."
BAE said: "We don't comment on allegations of cyber attacks against the company. BAE Systems' own cyber security capability can detect, prevent and rectify such attacks."
A former US official, speaking last week on condition of anonymity, said the BAE Systems element of the JSF program had "almost certainly" been penetrated.
However, he cautioned: "There are lots of aspects of weapons development. At least some aspects of it (the F-35 project) were targeted successfully by the Chinese. They didn't steal everything that was on that airplane, just some aspects."
The Chinese embassy in London described the claims as a "baseless allegation".
It said China condemned all forms of online crime.
Suspicions that the Joint Strike Fighter had been targeted by Chinese hackers first emerged in the US media in 2009.
The Sunday Times
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/security-experts-admit-china-stole-secret-fighter-jet-plans/story-fnb64oi6-1226296400154
Awesome New Pics of China's Stealth Fighter
Nieuwe foto's van J-20 :
http://defensetech.org/2012/03/10/awesome-new-pics-of-chinas-stealth-fighter/
Nieuw filmpje van J-20 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq1fZou_1Y
Made in China and with blueprints from USA
Weg voordeel van de snufjes voor de F-35, Chiná maakt inhaalslag.
Citaat van: Harald op 12/03/2012 | 10:05 uur
Weg voordeel van de snufjes voor de F-35
Goed zo, kunnen we 'm eindelijk schrappen!
Citaat van: Harald op 12/03/2012 | 10:05 uur
Awesome New Pics of China's Stealth Fighter
Nieuwe foto's van J-20 : http://defensetech.org/2012/03/10/awesome-new-pics-of-chinas-stealth-fighter/
Nieuw filmpje van J-20 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq1fZou_1Y
Made in China and with blueprints from USA. Weg voordeel van de snufjes voor de F-35, Chiná maakt inhaalslag.
Jaren 80 media: 'MiG-29 wendbaarder dan F-16, Sukhoi-25 100 km/u sneller dan A-10 Warthog. De Russen halen ons aan alle kanten in'.
Ach, toen we na het einde van de Koude Oorlog meer te weten kwamen over deze kisten, viel het enorm mee qua prestaties. En bleek de F-16 veel beter qua vaardigheden. De A-10 bleek minder kwetsbaar dan de Su-25.
De Chinese J-10 is een uitvergrote versie van de Lavi, maar is een nachtmerrie qua onderhoud. Hoe goed zijn de Chinese vliegers opgeleid ten opzichte van Westerse vliegers?
Citaat van: Poleme op 12/03/2012 | 19:40 uurJaren 80 media: 'MiG-29 wendbaarder dan F-16, Sukhoi-25 100 km/u sneller dan A-10 Warthog. De Russen halen ons aan alle kanten in'.
Ach, toen we na het einde van de Koude Oorlog meer te weten kwamen over deze kisten, viel het enorm mee qua prestaties. En bleek de F-16 veel beter qua vaardigheden. De A-10 bleek minder kwetsbaar dan de Su-25.
De Chinese J-10 is een uitvergrote versie van de Lavi, maar is een nachtmerrie qua onderhoud. Hoe goed zijn de Chinese vliegers opgeleid ten opzichte van Westerse vliegers?
En toch zeg ik...onderschat die Aziaten niet.....het gros van wat we hier gebruiken is made in maar ook in hoge mate designed by...zie internet, computertechnologie....hoge koppen komen van Aziatische universiteiten of zijn van die afkomst....Ik zie het al in mijn vriendenkring...andere mentaliteit...andere resultaten...die achterstand is zo ingelopen of is wanneer het er op aankomt niet relevant. De Russen braken de Duitsers technologische superioriteit uiteindelijk ook af in WO2. En wat gaat er nu steeds richting het ISS...made in Russia.
Citaat van: Poleme op 12/03/2012 | 19:40 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 12/03/2012 | 10:05 uur
Awesome New Pics of China's Stealth Fighter
Nieuwe foto's van J-20 : http://defensetech.org/2012/03/10/awesome-new-pics-of-chinas-stealth-fighter/
Nieuw filmpje van J-20 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq1fZou_1Y
Made in China and with blueprints from USA. Weg voordeel van de snufjes voor de F-35, Chiná maakt inhaalslag.
Jaren 80 media: 'MiG-29 wendbaarder dan F-16, Sukhoi-25 100 km/u sneller dan A-10 Warthog. De Russen halen ons aan alle kanten in'.
Ach, toen we na het einde van de Koude Oorlog meer te weten kwamen over deze kisten, viel het enorm mee qua prestaties. En bleek de F-16 veel beter qua vaardigheden. De A-10 bleek minder kwetsbaar dan de Su-25.
De Chinese J-10 is een uitvergrote versie van de Lavi, maar is een nachtmerrie qua onderhoud. Hoe goed zijn de Chinese vliegers opgeleid ten opzichte van Westerse vliegers?
Yet, observers say that in a surprising number of encounters - particularly between the American F-16s and the Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs -
the Indian pilots came out the winners.http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html
Goed genoeg dus om de f-16's van de US the verslaan ;D
ANALYSIS: F-35 LRIP 5 Contracts: Unit Cost Tops $200M for First Time
PARIS --- Previously estimated at nearly $160 million, the unit price of F-35 fighters ordered as part of the fifth Low-Rate Initial Production batch (LRIP Lot 5) has now passed $200 million, once additional contracts awarded by the Pentagon since our previous estimate on Dec. 9, 2011 are included.
On that date, when DoD awarded the main Lot 5 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP 5) contract worth $4,011,919,310 for 30 aircraft, we had estimated average unit costs at $159.7 million.
However, after recent claims by US Air Force and program officials that F-35 acquisition costs are being reduced as better prices are negotiated with contractors, we updated our cost estimate.
Unsurprisingly, F-35 prices in fact show no sign of decreasing, and the total cost of LRIP Lot 5 further increased after two additional contracts awarded in late December.
Intriguingly, the Pentagon picked December 27 – two days after Christmas, in what is arguably the slowest news week of the year – to award two additional LRIP 5 contracts. Had it wanted to hide these awards, it would hardly have acted differently.
One contract, worth $485,000,000, is for LRIP 5 "non-recurring requirements," which adds $16.6 million to the price of each of 30 LRIP 5 aircraft.
The second contract, awarded to Pratt & Whitney, is for production of 30 F135 engines for the LRIP 5 aircraft, and is worth $1.12 billion; it adds an average of $37.4 million to the cost of each aircraft.
We also identified a further LRIP 5 contract not previously included in our LRIP 5 estimate: it was awarded May 10, 2010, and covers F135 engine long lead items for this batch to the value of $138.8 million. At the time, LRIP 5 included 42 aircraft, so the contract's cost works out to $3.3 million per aircraft.
Including these three, the Pentagon has awarded five contracts, together worth $6,280 million, to fund 30 LRIP 5 aircraft, whose average unit cost – engines included -- is thus $203.4 million.
Here is an updated breakdown of this estimate:
TABEL 1 : http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
There are two caveats, however, to the above unit cost:
1. It does not include the cost of the modifications, retrofits and upgrades that will be necessary to bring all LRIP aircraft to their nominal configuration, once flight testing and development are completed. The estimated cost of these modifications, known as concurrency costs, varies between $5 million (Lockheed Martin) and $10 million per aircraft (US Senate panel).
The JSF program office has not released its own estimate, but Venlet in December said the bill for fixing concurrency ills was so high it "sucks the wind out of your lungs."
2. Several of these LRIP 5 contracts include cost escalation clauses ("cost plus incentive contract line items"; "fixed-price-incentive (firm target)"; "cost-sharing/no-fee basis," and "not-to-exceed cost-plus-fixed-fee"), so their actual cost will increase before they are completed.
It is thus inevitable that LRIP 5 costs will increase further, and by a substantial margin, as major re-design and modifications will be required, for example to fix the non-functional F-35C tail-hook and other design flaws.
Cost Varies Substantially by Version
Originally set at 42 aircraft, the F-35 Low Rate Initial Production Lot 5 now comprises 30 aircraft:
-- 21 Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft for the US Air Force;
-- 6 Carrier Variant (CV) aircraft for the US Navy, and
-- 3 Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Marine Corps.
Given the information provided in each Lot 5 contract announcement, it is possible to compute, with a degree of accuracy, the cost of each version of the F-35. If the average cost is $203.4 million per aircraft, it in fact varies substantially according to the version:
-- F-35A: $172 million per aircraft;
-- F-35B: $291.7 million per aircraft;
-- F-35C: $235.8 million per aircraft.
This is a breakdown of LRIP 5 contracts and resulting unit costs, by version.
TABEL 2 : http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
While these are the projected unit costs for the LRIP 5 aircraft, there is no implication that production aircraft would cost anywhere near these amounts.
However, costs will not begin to decrease until the F-35 enters full-scale production, and this is unlikely to happen for some years yet, especially since the Pentagon has now decided to further reduce LRIP production until flight tests demonstrate that the aircraft is meeting its performance and reliability goals.
Delaying orders for 179 LRIP aircraft for five years, part of the Pentagon's FY2013 budget request, will save over $15 billion in the short term, but will ultimately further increase unit costs for the remaining aircraft.
Lees voor meer informatie het gehele artikel
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
Citaat van: Hyperion op 12/03/2012 | 20:03 uur
Goed genoeg dus om de f-16's van de US the verslaan ;D
Inderdaad goed genoeg om de F16 te verslaan maar niet om een toestel te verslaan wat ongeslagen is in dogfighting.
Een zwarte jet met canards en een paar grote rode sterren dit doet me denken aan de film Firefox.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.defensetech.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2FJ-20bank.jpg&hash=0fbd1b18356713e2666dd89eed7c363264f8d703)
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.defensetech.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fj-20bank2.jpg&hash=e784c1c32f55e17f0d6f5c607169b3427123188d)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 12/03/2012 | 21:13 uur
Inderdaad goed genoeg om de F16 te verslaan maar niet om een toestel te verslaan wat ongeslagen is in dogfighting.
En als het zo doorgaat.. 2 F15SE voor de prijs van 1 F35A dat zou de keuze voor de Klu toch niet zo heel moeilijk moeten maken, het blijft Amerikaans, kan vrijwel alle taken aan, wordt minimaal tot 2040/45 up to date gehouden etc, etc, etc.
Of deze kist kansen maakt tegen een SU35 en PAk-FA?
Rust de F15SE ook nog uit met thrust vectoring en we hebben een formidabele kist misschien niet goed genoeg als tegenstander voor de PAK-FA (als die zijn belofte waar maakt) voor al het andere lijkt het mij ruim voldoende.
Morgen bestellen?
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/03/2012 | 23:09 uur
Rust de F15SE ook nog uit met thrust vectoring en we hebben een formidabele kist misschien niet goed genoeg als tegenstander voor de PAK-FA (als die zijn belofte waar maakt) voor al het andere lijkt het mij ruim voldoende.
Morgen bestellen?
Een F15SE met thrust vectoring is mogelijk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffb%2FF-15-vector.jpg%2F762px-F-15-vector.jpg&hash=bb5a431d5ae1c569f269779acf988b272368d69a)
Cost fears cause MoD rethink on fighter jets
By Carola Hoyos, Defence Correspondent
Ministers are considering another U-turn in the long-running debate over which model of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter the UK should buy, threatening further disruption to a project which has been dogged by indecision and cost escalation.
The defence ministry will decide as early as the end of this month whether to switch back to the F35-B, which needs only a short runway to take off and can land vertically, 18 months after ditching the model in favour of a "more capable, less expensive" alternative.
The government changed its order to the C-variant of the fighter jet, which needs a catapult to take off from aircraft carriers and a wire trap to land, in its 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review. At the time, it argued the model was 25 per cent cheaper than the alternative.
However, the defence ministry has now concluded the F35-C would be more costly than anticipated and is once again reconsidering its decision.
The review marks the latest in a series of hold-ups and uncertainties surrounding the procurement of Britain's next generation of fighter jets and the aircraft carriers that are supposed to carry them.
Douglas Barrie, analyst at the Institute for International Strategic Studies, the think tank, said a switch back to the F35-B "would present some interesting presentational issues" for the government having portrayed the C-variant as more cost-effective.
How the project spiralled out of control
● 1998 Labour commits to replacing three aircraft carriers with two larger, more versatile ones, capable of carrying a more powerful force and including a replacement for the Harrier jets. The project is due to start in 2012.
● 2002 MoD selects the short take-off and vertical landing version of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter as its preferred aircraft to replace the Harrier.
● 2008 The department signs the contract to build the carriers, aware that it needs to find an extra £234m to do so. Officials say they can find the shortfall from savings to existing projects, but the costs later balloon by £1.6bn and the project is delayed by two years.
● 2010 The new coalition government opts to change the type of jet on board the aircraft carrier from the Stovl F-35B to the "cat-and-trap" version (F-35C), which catapults aircraft on take-off and catches them on landing. This is to make sure UK jets are the same as US ones, so they can use each other's carriers. Resulting delays mean the carriers could be without jets for at least five years.
● 2012 Ministers review the decisions they made two years ago, amid fears the cat-and-trap system
will prove more expensive than first calculated. Failed tests to the "trapping" element show the project could be lengthier and more complex than previously thought. A decision is expected by the end of the month.
Kiran Stacey
David Cameron, prime minister, criticised the previous Labour government for choosing the Stovl F-35B and said the C-variant would allow more interoperability with allies and was "more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and can carry more weapons".
But for the F35-C to take off and land, the deck of Britain's two new aircraft carriers – currently under construction by BAE Systems and partners – would have to be fitted with a catapult and arrestor wire, known as a "cat and trap".
More than a year after publication of its strategic review, the government has realised that installing the system would be technically more demanding and 2-3 times as costly as initially estimated.
The defence ministry on Monday said it was reviewing all procurement programmes as part of its 2012-13 budget process. This included "elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed".
It said Philip Hammond, defence secretary, "expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter".
The UK was already facing a capability gap of at least five years when its new aircraft carriers would not have any aircraft to carry because of delays to the F35, which is manufactured by a consortium led by Lockheed Martin of the US.
Pentagon tests of the C-variant has found several serious flaws, including that the hook to catch the wire upon landing was too close to the aircraft's wheels.
Britain's indecision comes at an awkward moment. The first F35, a B-variant, made for the UK has already rolled off its Texas assembly line and is being tested by a British pilot. The defence ministry is due to take possession of it this spring. Meanwhile, other governments, including Italy and the US, have either cut or delayed the number of F35 they will buy due to cost pressures. That will drive the individual costs up for all countries involved. The UK was due to take 138 planes, but many analysts expect it to halve its order after signalling in its strategic review that it would reduce the number.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.
Ik verwacht eerder het afblazen van zelfs de F35C en aanschaf van een maritieme versie van de Eurofighter, Gripen of Rafale.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 13/03/2012 | 09:34 uur
Ik verwacht eerder het afblazen van zelfs de F35C en aanschaf van een maritieme versie van de Eurofighter, Gripen of Rafale.
Ik gok op de laatste.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 13/03/2012 | 09:34 uur
Ik verwacht eerder het afblazen van zelfs de F35C en aanschaf van een maritieme versie van de Eurofighter, Gripen of Rafale.
Deze terug-switch van UK is (denk ik) in goed overleg met de USA gedaan, UK als launching-custumer voor de B-versie met een flinke korting.
UK besteld binnen nu en 1 jaar z'n F-35B's en kan dan in 2020 beschikken over een carrier met vliegtuigen.
Ik weet niet hoe ver ze al zijn met de katapult en "vang"-kabels, maar als ze voor de B-versie kiezen kan dit gecanceld worden.
Alleen met de samenwerking Frankrijk/UK in het achterhoofd, kan ik de switch niet begrijpen. Als men wel voor een "gewone" carrier gaat dan kunnen ook de Fransen gebruik maken van de UK-carrier. Dan zou een switch naar de Rafale veel verstandiger zijn, maar dan zitten ze met de afspraken omtrent aankopen F-35-ers van de US. (welke natuurlijk onofficieel wel gemaakt zijn)
Of ze moeten wel alle voorzieningen voor de katapult en "vang"-kabels aanbrengen voor interoperativiteit met Frankrijk en zelf gaan vliegen met F-35B, maar dit kost extra geld !! en het budget omtrent de carrier staat al erg onder druk.
En een switch naar een Naval EF, dat zie ik niet gebeuren. Vooral niet omdat India gekozen heeft voor de Rafale.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 13/03/2012 | 09:34 uur
Ik verwacht eerder het afblazen van zelfs de F35C en aanschaf van een maritieme versie van de Eurofighter, Gripen of Rafale.
Zie http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9139029/Cost-of-refitting-Royal-Navy-aircraft-carrier-trebles.html
Voor het einde van deze maand zullen we het weten.
EF en Gripen zijn in mijn optiek volledig uitgesloten. Het e.e.a. zal zwaar samenhangen met de carrier aanpassingen, ik hou het op een u turn naar de F35B.
Citaat van: dudge op 13/03/2012 | 10:45 uur
Ben ik ook wel een beetje bang voor, zou jammer zijn.
Jammer aan de ene kant wel, aan de ander kant biedt dit mogelijkheden voor
beide nieuwe carriers!
UK DoD moet bij een eventuele F-35B aanschaf wel de knip trekken t.o.v. F-35C, Rafale of F-18E.
LRIP V prijzen:
F-35A = USD 172,00 miljoen, inclusief motor.
F-35B = USD 291,70 ,,
F-35C = USD 235,80 ,,
Citaat van: Poleme op 13/03/2012 | 12:53 uur
UK DoD moet bij een eventuele F-35B aanschaf wel de knip trekken t.o.v. F-35C, Rafale of F-18E.
LRIP V prijzen:
F-35A = USD 172,00 miljoen, inclusief motor.
F-35B = USD 291,70 ,,
F-35C = USD 235,80 ,,
In mindering te brengen op het aanpassen van één carrier.
Maar ook in de UK zal het een "zware" dobber worden.
Citaat van: dudge op 13/03/2012 | 13:03 uur
Inderdaad. Uitgaande van die prijzen:
138 F35B= (221*138) 30,4 miljard euro.
138 F35C= (178*138) 24,6 miljard euro.
138 RafaleM= (90*138) 12.4 miljard euro.
138 F18E= (80*138) 11 miljard euro.
Nu willen ze eigenlijk al geen 138 toestellen meer kopen. Maar met dergelijke prijzen en totale prijs verschillen moet er toch een belletje gaan rinkelen. Want het ombouwen van de carrier moet moet dergelijke prijsverschillen goed te betalen zijn.
Ik reken op maximaal de helft van 138 toestellen.
Citaat van: dudge op 13/03/2012 | 13:10 uur
Als gekozen wordt voor de F35, bij bovengestelde prijzen, wel ja. De Britten zijn wat anders dan de Nederlanders, en als zij voor een goedkoper toestel gaan word mogelijk/waarschijnlijk een groter deel van de order vervult. Of het er 138 worden is een ander verhaal, maar de ruim 30 miljard om hun carriers uit te rusten hebben ook zij gewoonweg niet. Dat is de helft van hun jaarlijkse defensiebudget.
En dan ook nu het punt van één geschikte carrier (voor niet VTOL), als het leidt tot beide carriers dan wordt het een hooguit 2 sqn van 12 per schip (aanname) en bij één schipkan je het dus ook uittellen.
Daarnaast worden het ongetwijfelt minder voor de beoogde Tornado vervanger.
What Is Worse Than Cheap Russian Crap
March 13, 2012: Three years ago, Myanmar bought 20 MiG-29 fighters from Russia, for $35 million each. China offered the similar FC-1 for less than half the price. Yet Myanmar chose the more expensive aircraft. What was odd about this was that both aircraft have questionable reputations.
This sale earned Russia some criticism, because Myanmar (formerly Burma) is a military dictatorship with a very bad international reputation. But Russia is desperate to keep the MiG-29 from fading away. To that end, Russia also ordered 24 MiG-29Ks for its sole aircraft carrier, to replace the Su-33s that currently serve on the ship. However, most of the current news about the Mig-29 has been bad.
Malaysia, for example, admitted that it got rid of its MiG-29 fighters because the aircraft were too expensive to maintain. It costs about $5 million a year, per aircraft, to keep them going. Most of the MiG-29s provided satisfactory service. Malaysia was long a time user of U.S. aircraft, so they were able to compare Russian and American warplanes. The Russian aircraft cost less than half as much as their American counterparts. The Malaysians find that an acceptable situation, even though they face better trained pilots flying F-16s in neighboring Singapore.
The MiG-29 entered Russian service in 1983. Some 1,600 MiG-29s have been produced so far, with about 900 of them exported. The 22 ton aircraft is roughly comparable to the F-16, but it depends a lot on which version of either aircraft you are talking about. Russia is making a lot of money upgrading MiG-29s. Not just adding new electronics, but also making the airframe more robust. The MiG-29 was originally rated at 2,500 total flight hours. At that time (early 80s), Russia expected MiG-29s to fly about a hundred or so hours a year. India, for example, flew them at nearly twice that rate, as did Malaysia. So now Russia offers to spiff up the airframe so that the aircraft can fly up to 4,000 hours, with more life extension upgrades promised. This wasn't easy, as the MiG-29 has a history of unreliability and premature breakdowns (both mechanical and electronic).
Russia grounded has grounded its MiG-29s several times recently, in order to check for structural flaws. Compared to Western aircraft, like the F-16, the MiG-29 is available for action about two thirds as much. While extending the life of the MiG-29 into the 2030s is theoretically possible, actually doing so will be real breakthrough in Russian aircraft capabilities. The Indians took up the Russians on their upgrade offer. But the Malaysians are going to go with the more highly regarded Su-30. Algeria, and several other nations, have turned down the MiG-29, which has acquired the reputation of being second rate and a loser. Russia, however, wants to preserve MiG as a brand, so it is not solely dependent on Sukhoi for its jet fighters. At this point, it looks like an uphill fight. MiG and Sukhoi are now both divisions of a state owned military aircraft company (United Aircraft). Technically, the MiG division is bankrupt. Sukhoi is profitable.
Meanwhile there's the problem with China selling the FC-1/JF-17, which goes for $15 million or less. This is about what a second hand F-16 goes for. There are still hundreds of used F-16s available, for under $15 million each. The U.S. still has about 1,300 F-16s in service (about half with reserve units), over 4,200 were produced, and America has hundreds in storage. The end of the Cold War in 1991 led to a sharp cut in U.S. Air Force fighter squadrons. Moreover, the new F-35 will be replacing all U.S. F-16s in the next decade. So the U.S. will continue to have plenty of little-used F-16s sitting around, and these remain a cheaper and more effective aircraft than the J-10 or FC-1. But if a country cannot buy F-16s (because of embargos, or similar problems), J-10s or FC-1s would provide a respectable, if more expensive, substitute.
F-16s are still produced for export, and these cost as much as $70 million each (the F-16I for Israel). Some nations, like South Korea, build the F-16 under license. A used F-16C, built in the 1990s, would go for about $10 million on the open market. The 16 ton F-16 has an admirable combat record, and is very popular with pilots. It has been successful at ground support as well. When equipped with 4-6 smart bombs, it is a very effective bomber.
The Chinese made FC-1 is exported to Pakistan as the JF-17, and offered to several countries (Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka) as inexpensive alternatives to American and Russian fighters. There were few takers. Hundreds of JF-17s are also going to be built in Pakistan, mainly using Chinese parts.
When the first JF-17 fighter arrived in Pakistan six years ago, it ended over twenty years of development for what was first called the Super 7 fighter. The JF-17 was developed by China in cooperation with Pakistan, which originally only wanted to buy 150 of them. All this came about because Pakistan could not get modern fighters from anyone else, and turned to China. At the time, China had nothing comparable to the early model F-16s Pakistan already had.
The 13 ton JF-17 is considered the equal to earlier versions of the F-16, but only 80 percent as effective as more recent F16 models. The JF-17 design is based on a cancelled Russian project, the MiG-33. Originally, Pakistan wanted Western electronics in the JF-17, but because of the risk of Chinese technology theft, and pressure from the United States (who did not want China to steal more Western aviation electronics), the JF-17 uses Chinese and Pakistani electronics.
The JF-17 can carry 3.6 tons of weapons and uses radar guided and heat seeking missiles. It has max speed of nearly 2,000 kilometers an hour, an operating range of 1,300 kilometers and a max altitude of nearly 18,000 meters (55,000 feet). China has not yet decided on whether it will use the FC-1/JF-17 itself. This is apparently because China believes its own J-10 (another local design) and J-11 (a license built Russian Su-27) are adequate for their needs. The J-10, like the JF-17, did not work out as well as was hoped, but that's another matter.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20120313.aspx
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 13/03/2012 | 13:05 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 13/03/2012 | 13:03 uur
Inderdaad. Uitgaande van die prijzen:
138 F35B= (221*138) 30,4 miljard euro. 138 F35C= (178*138) 24,6 miljard euro.
138 RafaleM= (90*138) 12.4 miljard euro. 138 F18E= (80*138) 11 miljard euro.
Nu willen ze eigenlijk al geen 138 toestellen meer kopen. Maar met dergelijke prijzen en totale prijs verschillen moet er toch een belletje gaan rinkelen. Want het ombouwen van de carrier moet moet dergelijke prijsverschillen goed te betalen zijn.
Ik reken op maximaal de helft van 138 toestellen.
Het worden er maximaal 66 F-35's.
Dancing With Thieves
March 14, 2012: Russia is selling China 48 of its latest jet fighter, the Su-35, for $83 million each. This is unusual, as Russia had stopped selling China weapons in the last few years because of continued Chinese theft of Russian weapons technology. However, this deal has been in the works for over three years. The biggest stumbling block has been the Russian demand for binding guarantees that China would not steal any of the advanced technology found in the Su-35. The deal may yet fall apart if the Russians decide the Chinese can't be trusted, or the Chinese demand a last-minute change that weakens such guarantees.
Russia has been hustling to find export customers for its latest Su-30 model, the Su-35. The Russian Air Force received the first of these two years ago, and export customers have been promised early delivery. There are few takers so far. There's just too much competition out there, from late model F-15s and F-16s, plus Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen. The U.S. F-35 is on the way as well.
That said, the Su-35 is an impressive piece of work. It's pitched as more reliable and durable than past Russian fighters, good for 6,000 flight hours (compared to 2,500-4,000 hours for earlier models). The big selling points are the sensors. There is a phased array radar that can spot large targets (like B-52s or AWACS) at up to 400 kilometers, and an infrared (heat sensing) passive radar with a range of 80 kilometers. The active radar can also track targets on the ground and the Su-35 can use smart bombs. The Su-35 is more maneuverable than earlier Su-30 types.
At one point, the Su-35 was touted as competition for the F-22. It isn't. That competition would be the PAK-FA, which had its first flight two years ago. Four years ago, the Su-35 had its first flight. The Su-35 had been in development since the 1990s. At one point, it was called the Su-37, but the name was changed back to Su-35. Since the 1990s, two different Su-35 prototypes were built. There were many disagreements over what direction the development should take, and by the late 1990s, the project was basically suspended for lack of funding.
The Su-35 is a 34 ton fighter that is more maneuverable than the original, 33 ton, Su-27, and has much better electronics. It can cruise at above the speed of sound. It also costs nearly twice as much as the Su-27. That would be some $80 million (for a barebones model), about what a top-of-the-line F-16 costs. The Su-27 was originally developed to match the F-15, which is larger than the single engine F-16. The larger size of the Su-27/35, allows designers to do a lot more with it in terms of modifications and enhancements. The Su-35 will carry a 30mm autocannon (with 150 rounds) and up to eight tons of munitions, hanging from 12 hard points.
The new engines being used in the Su-35 have suffered some development problems. The Russians have always had difficulties with their high end military engines, and that tradition continues. Currently, the Russians say that problems with the new engine are fixed.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20120314.aspx
Canada : toch een plan B met alternatieven
Minister raises prospect of nixing controversial F-35 fighter jet purchase
OTTAWA - The point man on the F-35 stealth fighter purchase says the Conservative government has not ruled out abandoning the troubled project.
"We have not, as yet, discounted the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program," Julian Fantino, associate defence minister, told the House of Commons defence committee Tuesday.
Fantino made the comment after a series of pointed questions from the opposition parties.
A tiny shift in the hard-headed policy on the country's most costly military purchase, it is also a drastic departure from the political rhetoric of a few months ago when Fantino declared his unwavering support before an American business audience.
"We will purchase the F-35," the minister was quoted on Nov. 8 in Fort Worth, Tex., home of the Lockheed Martin plant that builds the jets.
"We're on record. We're part of the crusade. We're not backing down."
The Conservatives say they still believe the high-tech jet is the best choice to replace the aging CF-18s, but the minister suggested Tuesday they are taking a cautious approach.
"We're going to, at some point in time, make the definitive decision," he said. "We have not, as of yet, signed a contract to purchase."
None of the other nine allied nations have given up the option of bailing on the program, and Fantino said Canada won't either.
Outside the committee, Fantino denied that the government is climbing down from its support for the jet.
"I'm being realistic," he said.
"Until such time as the purchase is signed and ready to go, I think the only appropriate answer for me is to be forthright. We are committed to the program.
"We intend to do the best we can for our men and women and Canadian taxpayers with respect to replacing the CF-18s."
Fantino insisted the government will not leave the air force in the lurch as the current fleet of 1980s-vintage CF-18s reach the end of their projected service life around 2020.
"And we'll just have to think it through as time goes on."
New Democrat critics have been relentless in the Commons by tag-teaming questions every day.
"We knew this project was shaky and now today we see a complete about-face," said defence critic David Christopherson, who pointed out the Conservatives have launched scathing attacks on critics.
"It's all bluster. The reason they suggest someone is unpatriotic is because they don't have solid answers to give. They need to be accountable to Canadians for the action they take."
The Liberals, who used the eye-popping F-35 price tag as one of the justifications for defeating Stephen Harper's minority government last year, were more low-key, but equally keen to watch the government squirm.
Defence critic John McKay described the testimony as "a welcome change in tone" that was evidently brought on by a meeting earlier this month in Washington where partner nations had a chance to quiz both the manufacturer and the Pentagon, which is co-ordinating international orders.
"My question is: How come it took so long? We've been saying this for years."
Since declaring their intention to go with F-35, the Conservatives have doggedly defended the decision. They've dismissed calls for a reconsideration of the project and attacked critics who question the uncertain price tag.
The Harper government says the $9 billion it intends to spend on 65 of the jets is carved in stone. But the government won't see a firm price until it gets close to first delivery, which is nominally expected in 2016.
The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion — a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.
Even Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.
In months of questioning in the Commons, Fantino has insisted there is no need for a backup plan in case of further delays in the project as the manufacturer works out software and design glitches.
On Tuesday, he told the committee he was waiting for defence officials to prepare alternate scenarios to the F-35 deal, the so-called Plan B that opposition parties have demanded.
He described the request as "what if" research.
Dan Ross, the senior defence official in charge of procurement, testified that his staff and the air force have been continuously monitoring the international aircraft market, but played down the idea that there is a lot of choice available.
"We don't see a change in what's out there," Ross said.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/minister-raises-prospect-of-nixing-controversial-f-35-fighter-jet-purchase-142486055.html
Citaat van: Harald op 14/03/2012 | 20:14 uur
The Harper government says the $9 billion it intends to spend on 65 of the jets is carved in stone. But the government won't see a firm price until it gets close to first delivery, which is nominally expected in 2016.
The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion — a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.
Even Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.
Canada's budget :
aankoop : $ 9 miljard C Dollar = 6,93 miljard euro voor 65 toestellen = 106,6 miljoen euro per stuk
exploitatiekosten voor 20 jaar : $ 7 miljard C Dollar = 5,4 miljard euro
Aanname's exploitatiekosten Pentagon : $ 14 tot 19 miljard US Dollar = 10,8 tot 14,6 miljard euro voor 20 jaar !!
In aankoop heeft Canada meer gereserveerd dan Nederland, maar voor de exploitatie kosten veel te weining. Bij elkaar heeft Canada nog minder gereserveerd dan Nederland.
Nederland heeft voor exploitatie 10 miljard euro voor 30 jaar. (6,67 miljard voor 20 jaar)
Beide budgetten blijken dus niet te voldoen.
Eurofighter To Join S Korean Fighter Battle
Mar 14, 2012
By Robert Wall
LONDON — The Eurofighter Typhoon consortium will be the only European aircraft maker to do battle against U.S. rivals in the South Korean F-X3 fighter competition.
The Eurofighter campaign will be led by EADS CASA in Spain. The team is hoping South Korea's interest in finding an industrial partner for the future KF-X program may offset some of the historic U.S. advantage in that country.
Saab does not plan to bid the Gripen in South Korea, and Dassault also has decided it will not pursue the F-X3 program.
South Korea is looking to buy 60 fighters in the latest tranche and plans to begin fielding the first of the aircraft in 2016.
The competition will be a close repeat of the Japanese fighter competition, when Lockheed Martin's F-35A beat out the Typhoon and the Boeing F/A-18E/F. In South Korea, Boeing is entering the F-15 Silent Eagle, however, rather than the F/A-18E/F.
South Korea has slightly eased some of the F-X3 requirements to open the door to non-stealthy aircraft. South Korea has expressed interest in an active, electronically scanned array radar. Eurofighter industrial partners are working on the technology, but a government-funded upgrade path currently does not exist.
For Eurofighter, after losses in Japan and India, pressure is mounting to secure additional export orders, with a production line shutdown looming around 2017.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2012/03/14/03.xml&headline=Eurofighter%20To%20Join%20S%20Korean%20Fighter%20Battle
Voor de Saab Gripen liefhebbers...
In het Duits, maar daarom niet minder interessant:
http://www.onz.ch/artikel/112298/
Gevolgd door een forum commentaar: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1868481
"33% increase in thrust is significantly higher than what has been stated officially from Saab. This implies 24,000 lbs version of the F414 engine.
A 46% increase in internal fuel capacity is also more than what has been officially stated.
Those sneaky Swedes...
A Gripen E/F in a2a config and with 50% internal fuel will be quite a beast! "
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/03/2012 | 09:15 uur
Voor de Saab Gripen liefhebbers...
In het Duits, maar daarom niet minder interessant:
http://www.onz.ch/artikel/112298/
Een Quote uit dit artikel :
Wann fliegt ein Schweizer Pilot erstmals einen Gripen E/F?
Spätestens in der ersten Mai-Woche dieses Jahres wird ein Testpilot von Armasuisse und ein Luftwaffenpilot den neuen Gripen E/F (Technologiedemonstrator) als Doppelsitzer fliegen.Dus ze gaan vol door met Gripen E/F
The F-35 and where we stand now
Posted on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, 5:05 am by Colin Horgan
After Tuesday's national defence committee meeting, it looks like the government is more willing to shift its messaging about the F-35. Associate Minister of Defence Julian Fantino floated the idea that the department is not necessarily ruling out alternatives to the F-35.
The program and the purchase
The cost
The war of rhetoric
So where are we with this? What is Canada's commitment to the development program and its possible 2013 contract? What about the cost of the plane? And what victory was it that the opposition parties actually won Tuesday in committee?
The fight over the F-35 has been like any other political battle. In the end, it's one of perception.
The program and the purchase
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, under which three variants of the F-35 are being developed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin, is the one to which Canada currently has a commitment in the form of a signed memorandum of understanding (which it re-signed in 2010). Canada has expressed interest in the F-35A, the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant.
That MoU allows industry from Canada and the other partner nations the opportunity to bid on contracts to build parts of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet. Canada made a financial commitment to the development program to the tune of around $200 million dollars since 2001. Signing the MoU was one purchasing path to the F-35 in that it theoretically gives those signatories the ability to bid on manufacturing and development contracts — the other would be to simply sign a contract in the future, which could potentially be more expensive.
So far, being a signatory to the MoU has allowed Canadian companies to obtain contracts to manufacture parts of the fighter jets, either by direct contract or sub-contract. There are currently somewhere between 25 and 30 Canadian firms doing direct contracting work for the plane, and perhaps as many as another 30 that are doing or have completed work at a sub-contract level.
The JSF development process has been touted by the government as a better alternative to the traditional Industrial Regional Benefits program that might normally be set up during large procurement programs. An IRB would mean some companies would be guaranteed work, though would not necessarily be assured of what kind of work that would be.
Whether the current approach under the JSF will actually benefit Canada's industry with regards to innovation in the long run is still not necessarily clear, despite what the government has said, as it could depend somewhat on the property and ownership rights associated with each contract.
There are also concerns among the partner nations that are considering purchase of the F-35 that the U.S. has been reluctant to allow international access to the plane's source codes — it was for this reason that Turkey was reluctant to commit to a purchase initially. It has reportedly now agreed to buy 100 planes, though has only so farofficially committed to 2. This has so far apparently been less of an issue for other countries, but others, including Australia, have floated the idea of decreasing their orders because of delays and the potential for rising costs.
Crucially, though, participation in the JSF developmental program does not necessarily mean that any partner nation is required to purchase a single plane, nor does the program have any punitive measures for any country that wishes to hold another tendering process or competition for a different fighter jet entirely while still being part of the development program. Other MoU signatory countries have done that. In fact, there is no explicitly stated punitive cost for any country that chooses to pull out of the MoU, but it would instead be something that is negotiated with the other partners.
All of which to say is there is no contract for Canada to buy any F-35 jets. So far Canada hasn't had a contract. What's more, there is nothing that currently requires a contract to be signed.
But what if Canada were to sign one in 2013? How much would we pay for the planes, or for the acquisition overall?
The cost
In question period Wednesday afternoon, Liberal interim leader Bob Rae asked Prime Minister Stephen Harper about a comment he made in April 2011, during the federal election, on the F-35s. At the time, Harper said, "in terms of the F-35 costs, we've been detailed with those to the Canadian public... A lot of the developmental costs you're reading in the United States, the contract we've signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs."
"Was the prime minister telling the truth when he spoke to the people of Canada on April 8, 2011 about a so-called contract?" Rae asked Wednesday. "Yes or no?"
Harper replied: "This is a matter of public record. At the time I was referring to a memorandum of understanding." Canada will have to take the prime minister at his word that he had misspoken. If he was referring to the MoU, he was incorrect — it guarantees nothing in terms of per-unit cost.
Canada has said it would like to buy 65 planes and has allotted $9 billion for the entire acquisition. That $9 billion, according to DND, breaks down like this:
•65 F-35 fighters (acquisition): $6 billion
•Initial logistics and setup: $1.3 billion
•Project management: $0.2 billion
•Infrastructure: $0.4 billion
•Weapons: $0.3 billion
•Contingency: $0.8 billion
In March 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer thought the cost, totalling $29.3 billion, would breakdown more like this:
•Acquisition: $9.7 billion
•Initial logistics: $1.7 billion
•Operation and support: $14 billion
•Overhaul costs: $3.9 billion
But the reality is that nobody knows what the F-35 will cost until it comes time to sign a contract. The numbers at the moment are speculative, and will ultimately change, largely depending on how many planes the U.S. decides to buy. The latest from the Pentagon was the decision to delay purchase on 179 planes over the next five years to cut costs — not necessarily a good thing for the program. It's perhaps for this reason that DND has said it is "continually assessing the implications of decisions resulting from uncertain global economic realities on the Canadian Forces future readiness."
Lockheed Martin maintains that the cost associated with research and development (the one the prime minister was talking about in April) is sunk and will not ultimately affect the cost of Canada's planes when it wants to buy. So the message from Lockheed has been that the price of the current F-35s rolling off the production line is far too high and it's too early to be worried. In other words: Don't trouble yourselves with all this news of failing this or incomplete that, Canada is going to get its planes at a great price. But the fewer planes purchased by international partners, the higher the costs will climb – it's a factor built into the idea of economies of scale. So, with regards to those sunk costs, maybe it's worth considering that Lockheed is a profit-oriented enterprise. It has to recover costs somewhere.
And while these numbers probably are a bit high, the most recent suggestion of cost for the F-35A we have to go on comes from the U.S. Department of Defence budget request for 2012-2013.
This year's totaling for the U.S. budget shows only 18 planes were eventually set for procurement in fiscal year 2012 for about $3.518 billion, or $195.4 million per plane. In its procurement assessment for fiscal year 2013, DoD is requesting $3.565 billion for 19 F-35A planes, or $187.6 million per aircraft. But again, it's important to stress that this number will probably not be what Canada pays. The fact of the matter is we still just don't know.
It is also perhaps important to note that under U.S. law dealing with competitive pricing, it says this:
"Procurement contracts made in implementation of sales under this section for defense articles and defense services wholly paid for from funds made available on a nonrepayable basis shall be priced on the same costing basis with regard to profit, overhead, independent research and development, bid and proposal, and other costing elements, as is applicable to procurements of like items purchased by the Department of Defense for its own use."
Effectively that means that all else being equal, and should it ultimately apply in this case, the U.S. cannot sell military equipment to other countries for less its own defence department is paying for the same thing. So the U.S. also has a vested interest in bringing those costs down as far as it can. This is the reason why it has put on a hard sell in Asia, landing a commitment in Japan for a fleet of somewhere between 45-60 planes. This is also why it will be a set-back for the program if India does indeed sign a $12-billion contract for French Rafale fighters, as has been recently reported. Japan has also warned it could decrease its order should the cost rise too much.
The JSF program and Lockheed Martin also need to keep development from running into technical problems. This has been the predominant news story for the last year for the F-35, and for that reason it has come under increased scrutiny from the U.S. government, particularly the Senate. Just as much, there are continued questions about the JSF business plan, based on the idea of high-rate concurrency, which has meant that production model planes are being constructed while flight and ground testing is still underway. According to U.S. Vice Admiral David Venlet, this process was "fundamentally ... a miscalculation."
In any event, not knowing the cost of the planes also means Canada does not know exactly how many it will ultimately be able to purchase with its $9 billion. The contingency cash built into that estimate is, apparently, believed to be enough, according to officials familiar with the file. But there are worries Canada won't be able to buy all 65 planes — the minimum the Air Force would probably need to fully defend Canada's air space.
At a press conference in February, a reporter asked Defence Minister Peter MacKay how many F-35s Canada will buy. "Same number or not?" they asked MacKay.
"Well, we're committed to buying aircraft that give the Canadian Forces the chances they need to perform mission success," MacKay replied.
The war of rhetoric
All of this means Canada could look around for another option, and has apparently been keeping tabs on other possibilities. In committee Tuesday, Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister for materiel at DND said there was a "small project planning team in place" staffed partly from individuals in his department and that of the the RCAF, funded by its operations budget.
"We're still in options analysis," he said regarding the evaluation Canada's next generation fighter possibilities. "We are looking at the implications of a new fighter from an infrastructure point of view, from a simulator point of view, from a training point of view, etc. We continue to monitor the options available us, available to us around the world. That option analysis commenced in 2005. We really don't see any change in what's available out there."
While procurement management teams aren't rare within any department, what the opposition seized on this week was the fact that, to this point, Fantino has been entirely vague on alternative options for Canada's air force. When he was asked if Canada was preparing a plan in case the F-35 was not a viable option any longer, he obfuscated.
In question period on November 16 in the House of Commons, NDP MP Christine Moore said, "The F-35 program has stalled. Does the government have a plan B for replacing our CF-18s?"
Fantino replied, "Not only is there a plan B, but there is a plan A to ensure that we acquire the best possible equipment for our men and women. Moreover, we are one of nine international nations that are part of this program. It was the Liberal government of the day that got us involved in this to begin with."
The next day, Moore asked Fantino to clarify that statement. "Now that it is clear that plan A is not working, will the minister finally tell us what plan B is?" she asked.
"All reasonable people agree that the Canadian Forces require a fighter fleet to face the challenges of the 21st century," Fantino responded. "The best plane and the only state-of-the-art stealth aircraft available to Canada to face the challenges of the next 30 years is the F-35 joint strike fighter. Our plan is on track."
A few minutes later, NDP MP Matthew Kellway asked Fantino about the statement again. "I have a simple question for whoever is in charge today," Kellway said. "If the government has a plan B for replacing our fighter jets, what is it?"
Fantino replied: "All reasonable people agree that the Canadian Forces require fighter jets to do the job for the challenges of the 21st century. The best plane and the only state-of-the-art stealth aircraft available to Canada to face the challenges of the next 30 years is the F-35 joint strike fighter. Our plan is on track."
The following Monday, November 21, NDP MP Guy Caron asked Fantino again: "The associate minister of national defence said that he has a plan B for the F-35s. Since plan A has failed, can he tell us more about plan B?"
Fantino replied: "All reasonable people agree that the Canadian Forces require a fighter that is able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Let me quote U.S. Secretary of Defence Panetta, last Friday, when he said, 'Let me be clear, that the United States is committed to the development of the F-35.' I witnessed first-hand the aircraft coming off the production line with parts stamped 'Made in Canada'."
In light of his testimony to committee this week, Moore asked Fantino about the F-35 again in question period on Wednesday. She wondered when the government would make a clear decision on three points: What plane, how many, and at what price.
Fantino replied: "I have been clear in the past and I will repeat. When the current aircraft come to the end of their useful lives, we will ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best equipment necessary to do the important job we ask of them," he said. "However, a contract for replacement aircraft has not as yet been signed."
So, that's where we are. In terms of political rhetoric, there's been some movement. In terms of virtually everything else, it's where we've always been.
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/03/15/a-watershed-in-words-only-brthe-f-35-and-where-we-stand-now-colin-horgan-defence-fantino/
ontwikkelingen in UK :
- GBP 1.8 billion to upgrade 1 carrier for catapults?
- Deck redesign;
- Loaned Rafales as Plan B, or back to F-35B
GBP 1.8b for refit?; Flight deck redesign.
"Estimates for adapting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter are understood have risen from £500?million to £1.8?billion."
That may be an unaffordable price, and force a shift back to F-35B jets. Fortunately for Britain, the F-35B has been taken off of its program probation already. Unfortunately for Britain, the sale of its recently-upgraded Harrier force to the USMC, at a bargain-basement price, for use as spares, will look especially bad if there's a switch back to a STOBAR carrier design. The government's response will likely be to cite Harrier operating & maintenance costs as too high to sustain.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-18-super-hornets-to-get-irst-03429/#more-3429
France Could Loan Rafales to Royal Navy
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/132961/france-could-loan-rafales-to-royal-navy.html
Citaat van: Harald op 15/03/2012 | 11:36 uur
ontwikkelingen in UK :
- GBP 1.8 billion to upgrade 1 carrier for catapults?
- Deck redesign;
- Loaned Rafales as Plan B, or back to F-35B
- De beslissing om de Harriers/Carrier combinatie als dusdanig uit dienst te nemen was een slechte... Enkele maanden nadien begon Lybië en daar stonden de Britten dan...
- Maar ook de beslissing om voor F-35B te gaan heb ik nooit begrepen.
Twee zo'n grote carriers bouwen en ze dan toch niet uitrusten in STOBAR (correctie, moet natuurlijk CATOBAR zijn) configuratie???
En dan nog zo weinig toestellen er voor voorzien.
Maar ook, hoe zit het dan met AEW?
Gebruik van een Hawkeye of dergelijk toestel kan je al vergeten en je bent dan op een heli aangewezen die niet alleen een beperkt bereik, maar ook beperkte on-station-time heeft...
Van het begin af aan was dit een niet goed doordacht project, temeer daar men koos voor een vliegtuig dat toen enkel op papier bestond en alle conventionele concurrenten (F-35C, Rafale en F-18) meer mogelijkheden bieden.
Ik denk dat de Britten er verstandig aan doen hetzelfde te doen als Nederland....te kiezen voor een interim-toestel en in te zetten op de opvolger van de Eurofighter, Rafale en Gripen. Een logische interim voor de nieuwe Britse carriers zou de Rafale M zijn. Zeker nu met de Indiase keuze voor de Rafale de kans op een marine versie van de Eurofighter helemaal klein is geworden. Helemaal weg stappen van de F-35 dus...of dat nu de B of C versie is. En zorgen dat die beoogde opvolger ook op de Britse als Franse carriers kan opereren. Bemand als onbemand waarschijnlijk.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 15/03/2012 | 12:44 uur
Ik denk dat de Britten er verstandig aan doen hetzelfde te doen als Nederland....te kiezen voor een interim-toestel en in te zetten op de opvolger van de Eurofighter, Rafale en Gripen. Een logische interim voor de nieuwe Britse carriers zou de Rafale M zijn. Zeker nu met de Indiase keuze voor de Rafale de kans op een marine versie van de Eurofighter helemaal klein is geworden. Helemaal weg stappen van de F-35 dus...of dat nu de B of C versie is. En zorgen dat die beoogde opvolger ook op de Britse als Franse carriers kan opereren. Bemand als onbemand waarschijnlijk.
Als de Britten die keuze zouden maken dan is de keuze voor de Klu voor mij niet meer zo moeilijk.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 15/03/2012 | 09:15 uur
Voor de Saab Gripen liefhebbers...
In het Duits, maar daarom niet minder interessant:
http://www.onz.ch/artikel/112298/
Gevolgd door een forum commentaar: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1868481
"33% increase in thrust is significantly higher than what has been stated officially from Saab. This implies 24,000 lbs version of the F414 engine.
A 46% increase in internal fuel capacity is also more than what has been officially stated.
Those sneaky Swedes...
A Gripen E/F in a2a config and with 50% internal fuel will be quite a beast! "
Des te meer tenen krommend hoe Han ten Broek afgelopen dinsdag in de 2e kamer zei: dat de Gripen nog geen combat range had van 400 km.. Ik snap niet dat die man met alle informatie wat hij geeft steeds weg komt.... Sorry ik moest het nog even gezegt hebben
U.S. Seeks To Ease Concerns Over F-35 Delays, Rising Cost
By Reuters Staff Writer
March 15, 2012 9:13 AM EDT
Reuters) - The United States sought on Thursday to allay concerns over delays and escalating costs for its new F-35 fighter, telling its eight partner nations there would be no further delays in the rollout of the radar-evading aircraft.
The F-35 partners' meeting in Sydney was the second in two weeks, following one in Washington, as some nations review their orders for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
"We have been given the adequate time needed to execute the program," Air Force Major General John F. Thompson, deputy Joint Strike Force Program Executive Officer, told reporters.
"There was plenty of lively discussion on affordability and production. What we pledged today was to maintain a very open line of communication."
The U.S. Defense Department is restructuring for a third time its $382 billion F-35 program with Lockheed Martin Corp to allow more time for development and testing.
Continued schedule delays and talk of lingering technical issues have prompted some countries to rethink their orders. The group includes Britain, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands.
The Canadian government, which has been a staunch defender of the costly F-35 program, said on Tuesday it had not ruled out the idea of withdrawing. Canada plans to buy 65 warplanes.
Japan, which has ordered 42 F-35s, has also warned Washington it may cancel orders due to rising costs.
The Pentagon last month said it was putting off its own orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, as President Barack Obama seeks $487 billion in defense budget cuts over the next decade.
Lockheed Martin said the postponement would increase the price of the warplane. U.S. officials insist they have not changed their plans to develop and buy a total of 2,443 jets.
The long-awaited first flight of an F-35 last week at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida was cut short by a possible fuel leak.
"I am absolutely confident that we will get where we want to go," said Thompson. "But from a procurement standpoint, it's up to each partner to decide what they want to procure and how much they want to procure to address their capability gaps."
Britain, the biggest outside contributor to F-35 development, has said it would wait until 2015 to decide how many jets to buy. Australia will decide in 2012 whether to continue with the purchase of 100 F-35 jets.
The United States expects to sell more than 700 F-35s to international partners over the next decade.
Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters.
Saab CEO Says Chance of Brazil Jet Order Boosted by Switzerland
By Ola Kinnander - Mar 15, 2012 2:55 PM GMT+0100
.
Saab AB (SAABB) has a better shot at winning Brazil's pending order of 36 jet fighters after Switzerland tentatively selected the Swedish company's Gripen plane last year, Chief Executive Officer Hakan Buskhe said.
Switzerland's nod to Saab in November "strengthens our chances" in Brazil, Buskhe said today in an interview in Stockholm. "We have a good chance and we're realistically optimistic. We have a very strong offer, but in the end this is a political decision."
Brazil told Saab the country aims to make a decision during 2012 and probably by mid-year, Buskhe said. South America's biggest economy is choosing among the Gripen, Dassault Aviation SA (AM)'s Rafale fighter, and Boeing Co. (BA)'s F/A-18 Super Hornet.
Saab edged out the Rafale and the Eurofighter, partly built by BAE Systems Plc (BA/), to modernize the Swiss fighter-jet fleet in a victory for the Swedish manufacturer that had struggled to secure more export orders for its marquee plane. Switzerland, which seeks to replace its ageing Northrop F-5 Tigers with 22 new jets, has yet to make a final decision. The political process, which may include a national referendum, will probably slip into next year, Buskhe said.
"It's not done until it's done, but what's positive is that their desire is very strong," Buskhe said.
India Prospects
Countries beyond Sweden that operate the Gripen are South Africa, Thailand, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
The manufacturer, based in Linkoeping, hasn't given up on selling Gripens to India, which tentatively opted to buy 126 Rafales.
"Some people there have reservations, and the decision- making process is far from complete," Buskhe said, adding that Saab is "not campaigning hard." "It could for example turn out that we sell parts of technologies," he said.
Dassault is confident that an accord to supply the Rafale to India will cross all hurdles as the French company intensifies negotiations to clinch the first-ever export deal for the combat plane, Chief Executive Officer Charles Edelstenne said in an interview last week.
Saab is also pursuing campaigns in Denmark and the Netherlands, both of which may decide over the next couple years to replace their ageing F-16s, Buskhe said. Saab's chances may be limited as both countries are "very tied" to Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)'s Joint Strike Fighter program, the executive said.
Buskhe reaffirmed Saab's forecast that its 2012 sales will rise "slightly." Defense spending is being reduced in the U.S. and Europe, while it's gaining in Asia, making it steady on a global level, he said. Asian growth is mainly driven by Russia and China, where Saab is not present, he said.
"There's been no big change in Europe for some months, but I feel that it's starting to bottom out," Buskhe said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-15/saab-ceo-says-chance-of-brazil-jet-order-boosted-by-switzerland.html
Frankrijk is blijkbaar toch aanzienlijk dichterbij de VAE Rafale order dan eerder gedacht!
Daarnaast... als het ze lukt met de VAE de oude mirage 2000-9 te verkopen aan Libië dan is dat een redelijke garantie voor een volgende (toekomstige) Rafel order.
Het wordt nog eens wat met die Fransoos.
Libya may get ex-UAE Mirage 2000s
Thursday, 15 March 2012 01:28
Libya may procure the United Arab Emirates' 68 Mirage 2000 fighters once the UAE replaces them with Rafales.
Brigadier General Abdel-Moneim said Ayad, Director of Public Relations at Libya's Interior Ministry, was quoted by the Middle East News Agency (MENA) as saying that the UAE has offered to transfer to Libya its 68 Dassault Mirage 2000s.
The UAE is considering replacing its Mirage 2000s with Rafales. Air & Cosmos magazine recently reported that all the technical and financial terms of the Rafale sale have been settled and that only a state to state defence agreement is necessary for the deal to go ahead.
In November last year Dassault hit a major stumbling block in the UAE sale for around 60 Rafales, as at the last minute crown prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, deputy supreme commander of the UAE's armed forces called the deal's terms "uncompetitive and unworkable".
However, the French newspaper La Tribune last month reported that French President Nicolas Sarkozy would travel to the UAE in March or early April to finalise the Rafale contract, which has been years in the making.
Furthermore, reports suggest that Qatar is trying to sell its Mirage 2000s to Libya – last month it was reported that Qatar was attempting to sell all 12 to the Libyan air force.
According to Tactical Report, crown Prince of Qatar Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani is said to have talked with Chief of Staff of the Libyan Armed Forces Major-General Yusef Al-Manqoush during their meeting on Monday in Doha, about plans to sell Qatar's Mirage 2000-5 fighters to Libya.
Last year Qatar, a close ally of France, said it wanted to replace its Mirage fleet this year, by buying around 24 to 36 new fighters.
Meanwhile, at the beginning of this month it was reported that France will modernise a dozen of Libya's surviving Dassault Mirage F1 fighters and provide training to Libyan pilots.
Libya bought 38 F1s in the late 1970s, but the arms embargo imposed against Libya by the United Nations (1992-2003) and United States, particularly after the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, led to spares shortages, with many of the aircraft being grounded as a result. On November 8, 2006, Libya signed a contract with Astrac (a joint venture between Thales and Safran) for the refurbishment of 12 F1s. The 140 million euro contract was expected to take four years to complete.
France is retiring its F1 fleet and will withdraw its last aircraft in 2014. It has contemplated selling some of these aircraft to Libya.
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24397:libya-may-get-ex-uae-mirage-2000s&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107
Canada raises the spectre of abandoning Lockheed's F-35
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
Analysts say Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) doesn't meet Canada's requirements even as earlier this week a top Canadian official raised the spectre of leaving the programme.
"We have not as yet discounted the possibility of backing out of the program," Canadian associate defence minister Julian Fantino told Canada's parliament on 13 March. "The determinate decision has not yet been made about whether we're going to purchase, buy, [and] acquire the F-35," he adds.
The Canadian government, lead by prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party has been a particularly vocal supporter of acquiring the stealthy fifth-generation jet. Canada has previously said that it would buy 65 F-35s for about $9 billion.
Later, the Canadian government insisted that its position on the prospective F-35 buys had not changed.
The increasing costs and delays associated with the F-35 have been a source of controversy in Canada and other F-35 partner nations.
Canadian analysts however say that the Harper government has not fully taken into account the country's requirements, particularly with regard to patrolling Canada's vast and very sparsely populated north.
"People are really re-evaluating whether the F-35 really is the best plane for Canada," says Michael Byers, a professor at University of British Columbia and expert in northern sovereignty issues. "We're the second-largest country in the world and much of our territory is very remote."
Byers questioned whether a single-engine fighter aircraft such as the F-35 is suitable to fly missions over the vast reaches of the Canadian Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. The swath of land is so large that it covers an area greater than half the size of Australia and is bigger than all of India.
Moreover, in recent years, Canada has not been a nation that has participated in large-scale combat operations in the opening phases of a major war-which is where the F-35 is most useful with its stealthy airframe.
"Canada has never been the tip of the spear in terms of combat operations overseas," Byers says. "So the case for a stealth airplane hasn't really been made that convincingly."
Analyst Stewart Webb of the Salt Spring Forum, a new Canadian think-tank, questioned the maintainability of the F-35's stealth coatings - especially in the harsh northern climate where temperatures can sink well below -50°C (-58°F).
While Canada needs a very long-range aircraft, Byers says, it probably does not need stealth.
According to a US Navy document, the original F/A-18 Hornet models, which Canada flies, have a combat radius of around 685km (370nm) while carrying three, 1,249lt (330gal) external fuel tanks and external ordnance. The F-35A model aircraft that Canada wants to buy is projected to be around 1,092km (590nm) without external tanks but with full internal weapons bays.
Webb alleges that Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) stacked its requirements in favour of the F-35. He contends that Canada should have considered alternatives to the JSF, but didn't. The DND should have evaluated competing aircraft such as Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen and the Dassault Rafale in a fair and open competition like Japan did, Webb says. Ultimately, Japan chose to purchase the F-35 for its F-4J Kai Phantom replacement.
"The Harper government wants the F-35," he says. "And just wants to make a bold statement saying we need to buy new, and buy new now."
Webb also says the Canadian government should have considered investing in the development of a domestically designed unmanned aircraft for patrolling the north.
Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia with close ties to Lockheed, says if Canada bails out of the F-35 programme it would be a huge blow to the company and the F-35 programme.
But it would also be a huge blow to the Canadian military, he says.
"The F-35 is the only stealthy production fighter in the world," Thompson says. "Any country that doesn't have it won't have a survivable fighter 20 years from now."
Even if a nation like Canada does not conduct the same offensive power projection type missions that the US does, hardware such as fighter planes stay in a nation's inventory for two generations.
"You really need to think through all the missions you might have to fly," he says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-raises-the-spectre-of-abandoning-lockheeds-f-35-369577/
Replace The F-35s With What?
Readers have been sending a number of emails on the F-35 purchase and the Ravens and Canadian Interuniversity Sport so I'll devote some space to these two issues on the blog today. A Bulldog reader sent this note along concerning the post, Dump The F-35 Purchase. The email is a little low on punctuation but it makes some interesting points. To read the F-35 post on The Bulldog, click here:
Re your blog .. Can the F35 and build high speed rail instead ?
And who we do we rely on for Air defence when the F18ś are scrapped as
wornout ? .. The US ? you are reallly ., really missing the big
picture here .. High speed rail won¨t replace fighter jets .. The
F18ś we have are nearing the end of their service life ,, good birds
when new in 1980 but now getting on ´ I doubt you drive a 1980
automobile cars are a lot improved since then.. Do you ever read
history ?? maybe not .. The world has had conflicts since recorded
time .. is war obsolete ? Probably not .. Can we predict what the
future might hold ? Maybe you have a better crystal ball .. Consider
for a moment The battle of Midway .. the US was outgunned and ill
prepared after Pearl harbour , their one advantage was 'Magic " The
cipher room in the basement of a Navy building at Pearl harbour ..
They knew the Japanese would come they knew pretty well when but could
only hope they could stop the Japanese fleet .. On board USS Hornet
first off that morning was Torpedo 8 .. Their airplane Douglas
Devastator long since obsolete . The comment was made by one pilot
we go to war with the equipment our government gives us .. not what we
would like to have .. Completely outclassed by the Zero .. all
aircraft were shot down as they approached the japanese fleet .. One
man . George Gay survived by sheer luck was spotted and rescued by a
PBY Catalina .. Another great testament to inadequacy of equipment.
Operation Cerebus – Scharnhorst , Gneisneau , Prinz Eugen — The
channel dash of 11 feb 1942.. The British were caught napping and by
the time they reacted the Kriegsmarine were well up the channel . The
Royal Navy fleet Air arm launched six Fairey Swordfish .. Obsolete
biplanes designed 20 yrs earlier but that was what was available at
the moment .. all were shot down .. 5 0f 18 crew survived . Lt
Commander Esmonde received a posthumous Victoria Cross .. Iḿ sure his
mother when receiving it from the king would rather have had her son
instead. The Canadian Airforce may someday have to go into battle ..
against what ? Maybe not against Mig 29ś but the latest generation
Sukhoi or Mig35ś Generation 5 jets that will sweep F18ś like so many
Fairey swordfish or Douglas Devestators from the skys .. Inadequate to
the task at hand ,, If we don have the F35 .. what else could we buy?
F22 Raptor ? Only used by US Airforce not sold to anyone else much to
the chagrin of Israeli Air Force or to some in Australian Air force .
Production line is wound down anyway .. More expensive than F35 ..
very very capable aircraft .. Othe choices Eurofighter ? . Maybe we
could convince the Germans to sell us some .. pretty capable . Saab
JS39 Gripen good enough for Sweden,Switzerland,Thailand,S.Africa but
not really a match for a Sukhoi Pac35. Super Hornet F18 ?? ..
Australia is worried enough about itś air supermacy to order some as a
stop gap till it acquires F35ś The Indonesian Air Force is just
getting too capable for Australiaś liking. Saudi Arabia just bought 50
F15 Eagles .. again old design 1970 but with improvememts fairly
capable .. There are not alot of alternates out there .. Jean
Chretien underfunded the Canadian Forces thru the 90ś .. The
conservatives at least got us some Boeing C-17 ś our 1960ś Hercules
replaced with new ones . Four so-so Diesel electric subs cast-offs
from the Brits .. I can hear the screams of protest in the House of
Commons that the governmant abdicated itś responsibility if and when
we really , really need our armed forces if that day of reckoning
comes .. hope it doesn¨t .. If we have to evacute maybe we can use
high speed rail to get out of the way as some Russian or Chinese
aircraft come our way with 'weapons free' .. Seen pictures of Chinese
aircraft carrier lately ?? It will be a bit late to acquire an
adequate air combat capability the week after Russia decides it wants
to take over Ellsmere Island .. A fighter pilot takes 3-4 years to
train and get good at his profession by age 30 he is losing his
sharpness .. Only by constant training does he maintain those skills
.. No matter how good he may be . Just as George Gay found out and
as Lt Waldron knew as he lead his group in search ot the Kaga , Hiryu
, Soryu and Akagi . Inadequate equipment is a recipe for disaster...
Robin Nordman
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/03/16/replace-the-f-35s-with-what/
Software problems could hit JSF program
19:19 AEDT Fri Mar 16 2012
Problems with software could lead to further delays and cost increases in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project and that could prove a crucial factor in pushing the government towards an air combat capability "Plan B".
Defence is currently preparing a report to the government, assessing the JSF program and the prospects of an air combat capability gap in event of further delays with JSF.
Two key defence figures have now warned of the potential for delays and cost increases caused by problems in the development and integration of the software needed to operate JSF's advanced sensor, communications and weapons systems.
Defence Materiel Organisation chief executive Warren King said defence would be much better informed about a range of JSF issues by the end of the year.
"There is software risk. There is a lot of software yet to be developed and software always creates issues in terms of fielded capability. It's nearly always solved but it usually comes with a cost and schedule impact," he told a parliamentary committee.
Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley, head of defence's new air combat capability program, said he would be looking out for significant delays in software development milestones.
"Any indications that they are failing to achieve those will be a warning to us," he said.
And they would be looking for any loss of capability in successive software builds.
"We have a very defined requirement for what is the minimum threshold capability we need for IOC (initial operational capability) and I will be watching to make sure that software does achieve that," he said.
Australia is set to buy up to 100 of the advanced F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which will form the centrepiece of RAAF air combat capability out to mid-century.
But so far Australia has committed to buying just 14 aircraft with production of the first to start in the next few weeks.
JSF has faced steady criticism that it will be late, too expensive and won't deliver the promised level of capability.
To that end, Defence Minister Stephen Smith has directed defence to report on JSF program progress so the government can decide whether it needs to go to a "Plan B".
That would most likely be additional Boeing Super Hornets on top of 24 already in service to ensure there's no capability gap between retirement of older F/A-18 Hornets and arrival of JSF.
Air Vice Marshal Osley said flight testing had shown up some issues relating to various aspects of JSF flight performance but none of these were regarded as critical.
"What is coming out of flight testing is probably very similar to what has been seen with previous aeroplanes and they are in fact reducing a lot of the problems through tweaking the software," he said.
"At this point in time there has been no requirement to change the outside shape of the aeroplane and perhaps that is the best indication that the design is robust."
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8436510/assembly-of-first-raaf-jsf-starts-soon
Denk ook dat die software er voor gaat zorgen dat er nog meer vertraging komt en sterk rijzende kosten.
F-35 Performance May Be Cut to Avoid Further Delays
AUSTRALIA faces an air combat capability gap later this decade with revelations the RAAF's new fighter won't be available until after 2017.
Deputy program executive officer for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, US Air Force Major General John Thompson said the development program for the fighter had been extended by two years to at least 2017.
The RAAF was due to have its initial capability of 14 jets operating at Williamtown air base in 2017.
That means the Government will have to buy more Boeing Super Hornet jets to replace the classic F/A-18 Hornet fighters that will be retired during the next five years.
"We are still ... five to six years away from the end of our development program and we are only 20 per cent through our flight test program," Maj-Gen Thompson said.
He said the development program had received a $4.6 billion funding boost and an extra two years to fully develop the jet.
The latest estimate for the cost of the so-called "fifth generation" stealth jet is about $130 million.
The Government is only committed to 14 but the plan calls for up to 100 of the jets for the RAAF to replace its fleet of F/A-18 fighters and F-111 strike jets.
The Federal Opposition says it will cut the order to just 50 fighters if it wins the next election.
Maj-Gen Thompson said many of the JSF's problems published in the media were normal for a brand new strike fighter project.
"Adding that $4.6 billion and an extra two years does not make our program low-risk," he said.
"The things that you read about today may not be the things you read about a year from now."
JSF aircraft will continue to be built during the development phase, but they will not be sold to international partners such as Australia.
Partner countries in the project are the UK, Canada, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Norway and Denmark.
Italy has already announced that it will cut the number of jets it buys.
Maj-Gen Thompson said that if serious problems were uncovered during the development phase then the fighter's capability might need to be reduced, rather than expose customers to long delays.
He said the program partners were focused on reducing the life cycle costs of the jet and driving down production costs. through greater efficiencies at Lockheed Martin's JSF production line at Fort Worth in Texas
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/five-year-wait-for-new-fighter-jets/story-e6frea8c-1226300951193
Delays In JSF Program, Five-Year Wait For Australia
Fri, Mar 16, 2012 16:15 CET
With revelations the RAAF's new fighter won't be available until after 2017, Australia faces an air combat capability gap later this decade, according to The Advertiser.
US Air Force Major General John Thompson, deputy program executive officer for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, said the development program for the fighter had been extended by two years to at least 2017.
"We are still five to six years away from the end of our development program and we are only 20 per cent through our flight test program," Maj-Gen Thompson was quoted as saying.
The Government is only committed to 14 but the plan calls for up to 100 of the jets for the RAAF to replace its fleet of F/A-18 fighters and F-111 strike jets. The latest estimate for the cost of the so-called "fifth generation" stealth jet is about $130 million.
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6717&h=Delays%20In%20JSF%20Program,%20Five-Year%20Wait%20For%20Australia
Tory minister says 'all options are on the table' for F-35 fighter jets
OTTAWA — The Conservative cabinet minister in charge of buying equipment for the military says all options are on the table when it comes to the F-35 stealth fighter jets.
Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino says the Tories have set aside $9 billion to replace the air force's aging CF-18 fighter-bombers.
He says the government has flexibility, so it can move ahead or behind in the line to buy the new aircraft, or buy more or fewer than the planned 65 planes.
The purchase price in any given year depends on how many other countries are placing orders.
But Fantino says he won't speculate on whether Canada will buy fewer than 65 F-35s.
The Conservatives say they still believe the high-tech jet is the best choice to replace the CF-18.
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/canada/article/688315--tory-minister-says-all-options-are-on-the-table-for-f-35-fighter-jets
Boeing has completed delivery of the U.S. Navy's first aircraft acquired through the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) III contract, ahead of schedule.
Current Super Hornet and Growler Multi-Year Procurement contract provides more than $605M in savings
US Navy to save more than $2.3B through combined Super Hornet, Growler multi-year contracts
ST. LOUIS, March 15, 2012 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] has completed delivery of the U.S. Navy's first aircraft acquired through the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) III contract, ahead of schedule.
Aircraft G-57, an EA-18G Growler, was the first of 148 F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs that the Navy will purchase through the contract. The aircraft was delivered to the Navy on Jan. 26 and arrived at its home base at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island on Jan. 30.
On Sept. 28, 2010, the Navy awarded Boeing the MYP III contract for delivery of 66 F/A-18E/Fs and 58 EA-18Gs, to be purchased through 2013. The Navy has since expanded the contract with the addition of 24 F/A-18E/Fs. The Navy has the option to procure up to 194 F/A-18E/Fs and EA-18Gs under the MYP III contract terms.
"This program continues to successfully draw on efficiencies from across Boeing to reduce cost, while increasing capability for the men and women who serve this nation around the globe," said Mike Gibbons, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs vice president. "Today's new Super Hornets provide unequaled air dominance and precision strike capability for the U.S. Navy carrier fleet. At the same time, the EA-18G continues to expand its dominance as the world's premier airborne electronic attack aircraft, as demonstrated by its recent successes supporting operations in Libya. The Super Hornet and Growler give the U.S. Navy a significant capability for a broad spectrum of anti-access, area-denial missions."
Boeing delivered 210 Super Hornets to the Navy during MYP I, which spanned fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The company then received a second multi-year contract that included 213 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft, and spanned fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Through fiscal year 2009, 44 more aircraft were added to MYP II, including 24 F/A-18Fs acquired by the Royal Australian Air Force under a Foreign Military Sales agreement with the U.S. Navy.
Procuring aircraft through the first two multi-year contracts generated $1.7 billion in savings for the Navy. The MYP III contract is projected to generate more than $605 million in savings, for total savings of more than $2.3 billion across the three F/A-18E/F and EA-18G contracts.
The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a low observable, multirole aircraft that performs virtually every mission in the tactical spectrum, including air superiority, day/night strike with precision-guided weapons, fighter escort, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses, maritime strike, reconnaissance, forward air control and tanker missions. Boeing has delivered more than 480 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy. The F/A-18E/F has logged more than 166,000 combat flight hours supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Boeing EA-18G Growler is the only air combat platform that delivers full-spectrum airborne electronic attack capability along with the targeting and self-defense capabilities derived from the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet. A derivative of the two-seat F/A-18F Block II, the EA-18G's highly flexible design enables warfighters to operate either from the deck of an aircraft carrier or from land-based airfields. The EA-18G was a critical platform employed during NATO operations in Libya in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn in 2011. The EA-18G logged more than 7,000 combat flight hours supporting operations in Libya.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2171
SAAB GRIPEN PROMO
Toch een lief klein vliegtuigje...
Dat klinkt minachtend ;D.
Een beetje zoals Van Dam die sprak over 'uw boekje'... :P
Citaat van: IPA NG op 17/03/2012 | 21:22 uur
Dat klinkt minachtend ;D.
Een beetje zoals Van Dam die sprak over 'uw boekje'... :P
Precies van wie ik deze reactie verwacht had.. maar maak je niet ongerust ik vind het een prima kist! ;D
Het was als grap bedoeld...
Maar over dit filmpje, is het nieuw dan? Een vergelijkbaar filmpje bestaat al een flinke tijd.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 17/03/2012 | 21:32 uur
Het was als grap bedoeld...
Maar over dit filmpje, is het nieuw dan? Een vergelijkbaar filmpje bestaat al een flinke tijd
Geen idee, ik kwam het vandaag voor het eerst tegen en vond het wel een leuk filmpje.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/03/2012 | 22:29 uur
Geen idee, ik kwam het vandaag voor het eerst tegen en vond het wel een leuk filmpje.
Deze you tube bijdrage is vandaag op de site gezet door een lid. Als volgende week iemand deze zelfde video onder eigen naam op you tube zet, lijkt het ook weer een nieuwe video.
Citaat van: Lex op 17/03/2012 | 22:40 uur
Deze you tube bijdrage is vandaag op de site gezet door een lid. Als volgende week iemand deze zelfde video onder eigen naam op you tube zet, lijkt het ook weer een nieuwe video.
Natuurlijk helemaal waar, het ritselt van de de filmpkes op YT... iets met bomen en bos.
Liam Fox jet fighter error costs UK millions
Sunday 18 March 2012
David Cameron will rubber stamp an embarrassing U-turn over the Government's £5.2bn super aircraft carrier programme this week to avoid "a floating white elephant".
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials that his predecessor, Liam Fox, made a massive mistake when he decided to change the jets that should be used on the new carriers.
Mr Fox switched from Lockheed Martin's F35 B class to its supposedly cheaper C variant, a move that was criticised because the planes were not going to be ready until a few years after the ships were launched. The new planes also required changes to the carrier design, costing up to £2bn – with the first ship too far developed to make the changes possible.
Mr Hammond will advise that the Government must switch back to the more conventional B-class jets, which are still expected to cost around $10bn, and has pencilled in an announcement for one week tomorrow.
It is believed that £30m has been spent on designs to accommodate the C class. Labour's defence spokesman Jim Murphy said: "The carrier programme is one of Britain's most strategically important defence projects and yet it is in disarray. More and more people will wonder whether this government can be trusted with the major projects on which our defences rely."
An MoD spokeswoman said: "We are currently finalising the 2012/13 budget and balancing the equipment plan."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/liam-fox-jet-fighter-error-costs-uk-millions-7576420.html
Fraaie aktiefoto van de EF
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/flyer1/images/92719/raf-eurofighter-ef2000-typhoon-fgr4-zj700.jpg
The F-35 – the UK's Last Manned Combat Aircraft Procurement?
Recently, the UK Ministry of Defence announced that it was changing its Procurement decision on the Joint Strike Fighter, the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, from the STOVL F-35B to the CV F-35C, with a planned order of 50 aircraft.
It was deemed that the extra payload and range capability of the F-35C, coupled with the larger deck size of the new carrier provided a cost-effective procurement compared with the F-35B. Both options have risks – for the carrier, the Brits have yet to integrate either electromagnetic rail launch and conventional arrester gear or the CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery. As for the STOVL option, currently, only the United States Marine Corps (USMC) is definitely (if there is such a word in Defence Procurement) slated to receive this model.
the growing cost of the carrier program, partly because the UK MOD 'forgot' about the ski jumps on the Queen Elizabeth carrier, costing £1.2BN to remove, and the difficulties experienced with catapult launch, there is a new 'Plan' to revert back to the F-35B! This is on top of the dismal FAILURE of the F-35A to carry out its first sortie from Eglin AFB, owing to (yet another issue) a fuel leak.
2012 should have seen the arrival in the UK of a limited quantity of F-35C aircraft, for evaluation. The Planned In-Service Date (ISD) for the Queen Elizabeth carrier and the 'stealth' F-35C aircraft is 2020, but this might be at risk because of programme delays in the F-35C, not least of all in the arrester hook problems, and the likely inability of the F-35C to fire the UK's standard Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM), as will be fitted to the UK fleet of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.
The F-35 Procurement is the US DoD's largest procurement programme (with an individual aircraft costing in excess of US$150M, more likely US$280M for the complete production run) the program represents a Total Fleet Life-Cycle Cost Estimate of possibly in excess of US$1Trilion (US$1,000Bn). This, for what was advertised as an affordable, capable, stealth fighter for the US and its allies, has now been revealed to be the most expensive fighter aircraft ever developed, with increased size and weight (and consequently reduced capability), and "stealth" compromised by the design and also the external ordnance hard points as fitted to earlier aircraft (certainly not in the league of the F-117 stealth fighter). This is such a change that it could almost be regarded as an update to an F-16, or the F-22 Raptor – only noisier. Now, being a Radar and EW Engineer by background, I have to confess that the JSF F-35 looks anything BUT a 'stealth fighter'.
Can the UK afford such procurements? It is understood that even the offsets originally envisaged have been 'blown', with the F-35 using Pratt and Whitney F135 engines instead of the Rolls-Royce/GE consortium F136 engines. What's more, as the 'all-knowing' UK MoD has now decided that the first new Carrier will be mothballed immediately after production, and the second Carrier will only carry one wing (not even a Squadron) of F-35's (plus 2 in reserve), what is the point of the UK MoD's Carrier 'Fleet'? No wonder that the UK and Japan are in discussions about Joint Production/Procurement – after all, the Japanese know that the UK can manufacture good products, hence the plan for Nissan to produce its new car series in the UK.
BAE System/MOD Taranis
However, contrast this with the UK's current demonstrator Unmanned Air Vehicles, Taranis (a large stealth UCAV), about which BAE Systems are keeping the details a closely-guarded secret, and the European (German-led) Baracuda,; and then there is the BAE Systems Mantis, the European Neuron UCAV, the Talarion Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) surveillance UAV. To my mind, most of these appear to be 'Stealth' designs. (Having seen, at extremely close quarters the last flying Avro Vulcan bomber... which overflew my house not too long ago, I think that I know 'stealth' when I see it.*)
Thales/Elbit Systems Watchkeeper Photo: Thales UK
In addition, there is the Thales/Elbit Watchkeeper, for the UK Army which is a joint UK/Israel UAV intended for airborne surveillance of the battlefield which is entering service. In addition, as seen, there are the existing and future European UAV/UCAV programmes and also the US programmes... and just about every 'developed' nation with defence needs and strategies have commenced their own UAV/UCAV programmes.
The UK has long been participating in Unmanned Aircraft programmes, including the Unmanned Combat Aircraft (UCAV) and is proceeding ahead of many other nations, via the auspices of the Civil Aviation Authority in programme ASTRAEA (Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation & Assessment), running from 2006 until 2013 with a £62M budget, to de-risk the operational use of UAVs/UCAVs operating in (Civil) Controlled Airspace.
BAE Systems Mantis
This programme, which involves the cooperation of Industry and Government, has the following key industrial members: Agent Oriented Software (AOS), BAE Systems, Cassidian, Cobham, QinetiQ, Rolls-Royce and Thales. In addition, many of the most innovative small companies in the sector, leading academic minds and the UK regulatory authorities are integral to the programme.
The two principal areas being addressed are:
Separation Assurance & Control – the particular technologies required to control the flying vehicle in the airspace from the ground control station the spectrum, security and integrity of the communication system and the vehicle's sense and avoid sensor system.
Autonomy & Decision Making – providing the intelligence in the vehicle through a 'variable autonomy system', that shares decision making for the mission and contingency management with the human operator.
Integral to these project areas are "Autonomous Sense and Avoid", a 'first' in aviation technology.
ASTRAEA has already been successful in terms of government/industry collaboration, which has resulted in the UK being recognised as the leading national authority on future autonomous UAV operations in controlled airspace.
So, what will be the impact upon future (UK) combat aircraft procurement? There is already a precedence set in the USA – in 2005, the percentage of UAVs deployed was just 5% of the US Military Aircraft. At the beginning of 2012, that number had risen to 31% (according to a US Congressional Research Service report).
Given that the UK has set a strategy to keep operational all new air systems for circa 40–50 years, what value can be seen in further expensive manned combat aircraft? The UK has demonstrated its ability to monitor, and if necessary, control the flight of an unmanned aircraft from the console of an accompanying manned aircraft (QinetiQ with a BAC-1-11 and a manned Tornado, using AOS agent software). The UCAV and UAV demonstrator programmes will evaluate remote monitoring via satellite links. So, in 2070, an Interceptor/Attack squadron could conceivably be formed entirely from UCAVs with a stand-off Mission Control aircraft. Cheaper Procurement, more versatile attack profiles (no need to worry about a pilot 'blacking out' at high g manoeuvres, fewer pilots required (with major impact on training budget), greatly reduced 'body-bag' count ...
... has somebody got a calculator? This seems to be an extremely cost effective Future Air Force – or is there something that we don't know about? Most importantly, it would seem that the US DoD and the UK MoD simply just don't know what to do. Having read a Defence Procurement paper recently, I was just about to say, "Just as I expected" when I realised that it was a Defense (USA) Procurement paper. Oh, **** !
Meanwhile, China continues to expand its forces, with Chinese warships operating new UAVs at sea, back in 2011, and with anticipated 'carbon copies of the US Predator and Global Hawk', it doesn't take a genius to anticipate that China will soon have UCAV technologies, flying, to accompany their extremely large fleet. China has been offering for sale helicopter UAVs (such as the U8E), China also offers fixed wing UAVs, which are currently about a generation behind Western models (which is the usual Western policy, so no change, there!). The Chinese are willing to compete on price, but most heavy UAV users still prefer American or Israeli models – at present.
No wonder that the USA now plans to virtually leave the Atlantic ocean, and concentrate on the Pacific ocean.
http://defense-update.com/20120318_the-f-35-the-uks-last-manned-combat-aircraft-procurement.html
Don't waver on the F-35s
By David Krayden, Ottawa Citizen March 19, 2012 2:02 AM
My solemn advice to the Conservative government: hands off the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). While you are seemingly still prepared to throw away more than $1 billion per annum on state broadcaster CBC and are now warming to the numbing stupidity of paying $2 billion to public servants to leave the bloated bureaucracy, you are wavering on national defence. You are threatening the integrity of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which, thank God, due to your wisdom, we are now able to say again without sounding wistfully nostalgic.
Now is not the time for defence penury. We perceived more than a hint of parsimony and this week's non-commitment and equivocation from Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino. His repeated use of the word "if" when describing the purchase of the F-35 to the House of Commons defence committee must give pause for concern.
Let us proceed with both hands on the throttle but let us proceed with a flight plan. What will be the final price tag? Is it nine, 16 or 30 billion dollars? Confusion only engenders fear and a good talking point for the NDP, three letters which must persist in being deciphered as "No Defence Policy." If the NDP had their way, the RCAF would be flying Sopwith Camel biplanes and putting out forest fires, so much do they loathe the military.
But let us remember what we do know about the F-35. Can we please allow the facts to get in the way of NDP obfuscation?
The Official Opposition is fond of reminding Canadians that the fighter jet was "sole sourced." This may make for good election commercials but it doesn't explain why we should not purchase this particular aircraft. The JSF was a long-term project that Canada supported along with the U.S. Department of Defence. The Liberal government of the day was part of that process and the Liberal-run defence department spent Canadian defence dollars in the research and development of the JSF project. This was clearly a project engendered in the national - and not the political -interest and nurtured by operational requirements.
Those dollars were spent in conjunction with our allies, particularly the United States. That relationship is another reason that Canada needs the F-35. It is the fighter replacement choice for all three branches of the U.S. military that currently fly fighter jets: The U.S. air force, Navy and Marines. The F-35 is also Australia's choice and will be flown by Britain's Royal Air Force, both also key countries that Canada works with on a regular basis. This is called being interoperable with your allies and it makes good military sense.
Can we stop playing politics with defence in this country? If this plea seems more of a cliché to you than a heartfelt desire, it is due to the preponderance of political theatre in Canada for which the military is the primary target. We have got to do better than that. If it is in our grasp to emulate any other country's defence posture, it should be that of Australia, where military issues are a source of unity among the populace and the political parties, where the NDP-counterpart Labour Party, whether as government or in opposition, has consistently viewed national defence initiatives from a non-partisan perspective.
But if the facts from the present are insufficient, let us consider some lessons from the past, such as the dreadful legacy of the EH-101 helicopter. The Mulroney government had initially ordered 50 of these helicopters to replace both the Labrador search and rescue helicopter and the Sea King ship-borne helicopter. Blink-of-an-eye PM Kim Campbell downgraded that order to 35 but that was still too much for the Liberal Party. In 1993, when the decade of despair commenced, Jean Chrétien cancelled the EH-101, claiming it was a "Cadillac," as if the Canadian military should never require any product approaching the best. The chopper cancellation played a large part in that year's election campaign and Chrétien kept his promise. The result was 10 years of chaos and cancellation fees. The Liberal government ultimately turned around and bought the EH-101 as the search and rescue replacement (now called the Cormorant so nobody would notice it was the same aircraft) and dithered about replacing the Sea King to the point that Air Force crews aboard Navy ships are still flying the 49-year-old helicopter and waiting for the delivery of 24 Cyclone replacements.
This is precisely where another aircraft cancellation will lead us again and precisely where this government knows it should not go.
David Krayden is a former Air Force public affairs officer and the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, an independent, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity through the development and promotion of good public policy, www.policystudies.ca
Correction: J.L. Granatstein's column "Help Isn't Coming for Syrian Opposition," (March 18) misstated Syria's religious composition. Syria's population is mainly Sunni, but Assad, an Alawite, has support from Christians and other minorities fearful of the Sunni leadership of the revolt.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/waver/6322187/story.html#ixzz1pXfX19TF
France's Dassault: India Seeks To Close Rafale Deal In 6 Months Report
PARIS -(Dow Jones)- The Indian government is seeking to close the negotiation over the acquisition of 126 Rafale fighter jets within six months, newspaper Les Echos reports, quoting Eric Trappier, the international director from French airplane manufacturer Dassault Aviation SA (AM.FR).
The Dassault executive expects the negotiations will end with a firm order. The Indian government selected Dassault for exclusive negotiations on the order, estimated to be worth $10 billion.
Trappier also said Brazil's bidding process for 36 fighter jets, estimated to be worth as much as $5 billion, is still frozen by the government.
For the Brazilian contract, Boeing Co. (BA) has offered its F-18 Super Hornet against Dassault's Rafale and Gripen aircraft from Swedish manufacturer Saab (SAAB-B.SK). Brazilian government officials have recently hinted they are leaning toward the purchase of Rafale aircraft after the Indian government picked Dassault.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/frances-dassault-india-seeks-to-close-rafale-deal-in-6-months-report-20120319-00061
Die JSF lobby is Canada is wel erg hardnekkig.
India to induct new combat jets from 2016
Submitted by admin4 on 19 March 2012 - 8:11pm
By IANS,
New Delhi : Come 2016 and India will start inducting the first of the 126 combat jets it is purchasing for nearly $20 billion, parliament was informed Monday.
The first squadron of the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) will comprise 18 Rafale aircraft that will be purchased in a fly-away condition from French manufacturer Dassault Aviation. The remaining aircraft will be progressively manufactured in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, with the last of them being inducted before the end of 2023.
The Rafale was chosen after beating off stiff competition from five other aircraft.
"The first squadron of MMRCA consisting of 18 aircraft is expected to be inducted within three to four years of signing the contract," Antony told the Lok Sabha during question hour.
The deal is expected to be sealed before the end of 2012, as cost negotiations are on with Dassault Aviation.
http://twocircles.net/2012mar19/india_induct_new_combat_jets_2016.html
British aircraft carrier planes policy set for review2012-03-20 10:18
LONDON, March 19- The British government is carrying out a review of its policy on the equipment of its two planned aircraft carriers, reports said Monday.
Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government opted in its Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in October 2010 to continue building two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, but changed the aircraft it wanted to fly from them in order to save money.
Now the government is considering changing the types of planes to fly from the carriers back to its earlier choice, also in a bid to save money.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defense (MOD) told Xinhua on Monday, "The MOD is currently finalizing the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan. This means reviewing all programs, including elements of the carrier strike program, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defense secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament before Easter (April 1)."
The aeroplanes originally chosen for the two carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class were the American-built Joint Strike Fighter F35B, specialist planes capable of short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL).
These STOVL planes would not be able to operate from conventional aircraft carriers, such as those used by Britain's two closest allies the United States and France.
The SDSR ditched plans for these planes, because conventional carrier planes, using the catapult assisted takeoff and barrier arrested recovery (CATOBAR) system, were cheaper and offered compatibility with allies' carriers.
The choice fell on the Joint Strike Fighter variant F35C.
The SDSR stated, "The last government committed to carriers that would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies. It will take time to rectify this error but we are determined to do so. We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the JSF with a longer range and able to carry more weapons. Crucially, that will allow our carrier to operate in tandem with the U.S. and French navies."
However, the change in choice for the planes came after construction had begun on both carriers, and meant that the plans for at least one of the carriers would have to be changed.
Now, fears of rising costs on the F35C program, and the costs and time needed to change the carrier plans mean that the decision to choose a catapult and trap landing system (cats and traps) is under review, and with it a possible return to the original F35B plane.
The spokesman added, "The intention to move to a 'cats and traps' based carrier strike capability, which was announced in the SDSR, was always subject to a detailed piece of work to assess the costs and risks involved in converting a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. That work is ongoing."
The original high costs of the carriers and planes had meant that the first of the carriers to be built would be put into extended readiness, in effect moth-balled, as soon as it was launched. However, if returning to the STOVL F35B proves cheaper, then it could mean that both aircraft carriers would become operational.
The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported a government source as saying, "There will be short-term pain for the government, but in the long run, it is by far the best option. Adapting the carriers is skewing the defense budget out of shape, and there is every likelihood the costs will continue to rise. It has to be Cameron's decision, but the military advice is clear."
A decision is likely to be made at next Monday's National Security Council meeting, according to the Daily Telegraph.
Britain's aircraft carriers have often been controversial. The fleet of three medium-sized carriers of the Invincible class was scrapped in the SDSR in 2010, with only one of the carriers retained as a helicopter carrier.
This, and the decision to scrap the fixed-wing aircraft that were flying from them, was criticized at the time by many experts because it left a gap of 10 years before one of the Queen Elizabeth class ships came into service with its aircraft in 2020.
A 1960s program to build large conventional carriers, like the Queen Elizabeth class, was scrapped in a bid to cut military spending and in light of Britain's shrinking empire at the time and its declining global role.
http://english.eastday.com/e/120320/u1a6436714.html
The F-35 – the UK's Last Manned Combat Aircraft Procurement?
Recently, the UK Ministry of Defence announced that it was changing its Procurement decision on the Joint Strike Fighter, the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, from the STOVL F-35B to the CV F-35C, with a planned order of 50 aircraft.
It was deemed that the extra payload and range capability of the F-35C, coupled with the larger deck size of the new carrier provided a cost-effective procurement compared with the F-35B. Both options have risks – for the carrier, the Brits have yet to integrate either electromagnetic rail launch and conventional arrester gear or the CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery. As for the STOVL option, currently, only the United States Marine Corps (USMC) is definitely (if there is such a word in Defence Procurement) slated to receive this model.
Facing the growing cost of the carrier program, partly because the UK MOD 'forgot' about the ski jumps on the Queen Elizabeth carrier, costing £1.2BN to remove, and the difficulties experienced with catapult launch, there is a new 'Plan' to revert back to the F-35B! This is on top of the dismal FAILURE of the F-35A to carry out its first sortie from Eglin AFB, owing to (yet another issue) a fuel leak.
2012 should have seen the arrival in the UK of a limited quantity of F-35C aircraft, for evaluation. The Planned In-Service Date (ISD) for the Queen Elizabeth carrier and the 'stealth' F-35C aircraft is 2020, but this might be at risk because of programme delays in the F-35C, not least of all in the arrester hook problems, and the likely inability of the F-35C to fire the UK's standard Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM), as will be fitted to the UK fleet of Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.
The F-35 Procurement is the US DoD's largest procurement programme (with an individual aircraft costing in excess of US$150M, more likely US$280M for the complete production run) the program represents a Total Fleet Life-Cycle Cost Estimate of possibly in excess of US$1Trilion (US$1,000Bn). This, for what was advertised as an affordable, capable, stealth fighter for the US and its allies, has now been revealed to be the most expensive fighter aircraft ever developed, with increased size and weight (and consequently reduced capability), and "stealth" compromised by the design and also the external ordnance hard points as fitted to earlier aircraft (certainly not in the league of the F-117 stealth fighter). This is such a change that it could almost be regarded as an update to an F-16, or the F-22 Raptor – only noisier. Now, being a Radar and EW Engineer by background, I have to confess that the JSF F-35 looks anything BUT a 'stealth fighter'.
Can the UK afford such procurements? It is understood that even the offsets originally envisaged have been 'blown', with the F-35 using Pratt and Whitney F135 engines instead of the Rolls-Royce/GE consortium F136 engines. What's more, as the 'all-knowing' UK MoD has now decided that the first new Carrier will be mothballed immediately after production, and the second Carrier will only carry one wing (not even a Squadron) of F-35's (plus 2 in reserve), what is the point of the UK MoD's Carrier 'Fleet'? No wonder that the UK and Japan are in discussions about Joint Production/Procurement – after all, the Japanese know that the UK can manufacture good products, hence the plan for Nissan to produce its new car series in the UK.
However, contrast this with the UK's current demonstrator Unmanned Air Vehicles, Taranis (a large stealth UCAV), about which BAE Systems are keeping the details a closely-guarded secret, and the European (German-led) Baracuda,; and then there is the BAE Systems Mantis, the European Neuron UCAV, the Talarion Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) surveillance UAV. To my mind, most of these appear to be 'Stealth' designs. (Having seen, at extremely close quarters the last flying Avro Vulcan bomber... which overflew my house not too long ago, I think that I know 'stealth' when I see it.*)
In addition, there is the Thales/Elbit Watchkeeper, for the UK Army which is a joint UK/Israel UAV intended for airborne surveillance of the battlefield which is entering service. In addition, as seen, there are the existing and future European UAV/UCAV programmes and also the US programmes... and just about every 'developed' nation with defence needs and strategies have commenced their own UAV/UCAV programmes.
The UK has long been participating in Unmanned Aircraft programmes, including the Unmanned Combat Aircraft (UCAV) and is proceeding ahead of many other nations, via the auspices of the Civil Aviation Authority in programme ASTRAEA (Autonomous Systems Technology Related Airborne Evaluation & Assessment), running from 2006 until 2013 with a £62M budget, to de-risk the operational use of UAVs/UCAVs operating in (Civil) Controlled Airspace.
This programme, which involves the cooperation of Industry and Government, has the following key industrial members: Agent Oriented Software (AOS), BAE Systems, Cassidian, Cobham, QinetiQ, Rolls-Royce and Thales. In addition, many of the most innovative small companies in the sector, leading academic minds and the UK regulatory authorities are integral to the programme.
The two principal areas being addressed are:
Separation Assurance & Control – the particular technologies required to control the flying vehicle in the airspace from the ground control station the spectrum, security and integrity of the communication system and the vehicle's sense and avoid sensor system.
Autonomy & Decision Making – providing the intelligence in the vehicle through a 'variable autonomy system', that shares decision making for the mission and contingency management with the human operator.
Integral to these project areas are "Autonomous Sense and Avoid", a 'first' in aviation technology.
ASTRAEA has already been successful in terms of government/industry collaboration, which has resulted in the UK being recognised as the leading national authority on future autonomous UAV operations in controlled airspace.
So, what will be the impact upon future (UK) combat aircraft procurement? There is already a precedence set in the USA – in 2005, the percentage of UAVs deployed was just 5% of the US Military Aircraft. At the beginning of 2012, that number had risen to 31% (according to a US Congressional Research Service report).
Given that the UK has set a strategy to keep operational all new air systems for circa 40–50 years, what value can be seen in further expensive manned combat aircraft? The UK has demonstrated its ability to monitor, and if necessary, control the flight of an unmanned aircraft from the console of an accompanying manned aircraft (QinetiQ with a BAC-1-11 and a manned Tornado, using AOS agent software). The UCAV and UAV demonstrator programmes will evaluate remote monitoring via satellite links. So, in 2070, an Interceptor/Attack squadron could conceivably be formed entirely from UCAVs with a stand-off Mission Control aircraft. Cheaper Procurement, more versatile attack profiles (no need to worry about a pilot 'blacking out' at high g manoeuvres, fewer pilots required (with major impact on training budget), greatly reduced 'body-bag' count ...
... has somebody got a calculator? This seems to be an extremely cost effective Future Air Force – or is there something that we don't know about? Most importantly, it would seem that the US DoD and the UK MoD simply just don't know what to do. Having read a Defence Procurement paper recently, I was just about to say, "Just as I expected" when I realised that it was a Defense (USA) Procurement paper. Oh, **** !
Meanwhile, China continues to expand its forces, with Chinese warships operating new UAVs at sea, back in 2011, and with anticipated 'carbon copies of the US Predator and Global Hawk', it doesn't take a genius to anticipate that China will soon have UCAV technologies, flying, to accompany their extremely large fleet. China has been offering for sale helicopter UAVs (such as the U8E), China also offers fixed wing UAVs, which are currently about a generation behind Western models (which is the usual Western policy, so no change, there!). The Chinese are willing to compete on price, but most heavy UAV users still prefer American or Israeli models – at present.
No wonder that the USA now plans to virtually leave the Atlantic ocean, and concentrate on the Pacific ocean.
About the author: Peter L. Hartley, MSc, CAET, MInstP, MIET
With 41+ years experience in defense electronics (radar, electronic warfare, C3I and CIS and mission systems) and associated activities, Peter Hartley offers a wide range of skills and capabilities in the field of Systems including System Architecture, Bid Management, Bid Reviews at national/international levels, Business Development (and Business Creation), Customer Liaison, Contract Negotiation, Marketing Support, Engineering Management, Design Authority, Team Building, and Research.
(* Particularly as a UK Engineer ran the US Stealth Aircraft programmes – as I was informed by Cranfield College of Aeronautics, who trained the person concerned.)
http://defense-update.com/20120318_the-f-35-the-uks-last-manned-combat-aircraft-procurement.html
David Cameron set to admit supercarrier jets order bungle
Mar 20 2012 By Torcuil Crichton
DAVID Cameron is ready to admit he has ordered the wrong kind of jets for the Royal Navy's supercarriers.
He is preparing to say that plans for jump jets to fly off the two carriers being built in Govan and Rosyth should not have been cancelled.
Labour last night said the Government were in complete disarray over one of the most important military equipment decisions in decades.
Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said the £5billion carriers contract was being squandered, leaving Britain without proper defences.
He added: "This is one of the biggest public procurement messes for many decades."
In a rushed defence review last year, the Government mothballed one of the two carriers due to come into service in 2020 and scrapped the Harrier jump jet fleet.
The carriers' landing decks were to be converted to allow a new version of the Joint Strike Fighter to be catapulted from the decks and caught by arrester wires.
But military chiefs are now advising they should go for a different version of the JSF which can take off and land like the Harrier jump jet.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2012/03/20/government-in-complete-disarray-over-supercarrier-jets-order-bungle-say-labour-86908-23795439/
Eens iets heel anders...
F15 Ejection at Supersonic speed
http://www.myvidster.com/video/4860588/F15_Ejection_at_Supersonic_speed
More cost growth would cut F-35 buy - US Air Force
Tue, 20th Mar 2012
WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) -
Any further cost increase or problems with the $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would mean reduced Pentagon purchases of the new warplane, being developed and built by Lockheed Martin Corp, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told a Senate committee on Tuesday.
Donley said the latest restructuring of the program should allow the F-35 to continue with the 'least risk.'
But he said the Pentagon's F-35 program office and Lockheed had been told there was 'no more money to put against contract overruns or problems.'
'To the extent that there continue to be cost growth or challenges ... We'll have to take down the number of aircraft that we have planned in procurement to pay for that work because no more money is going to be migrating into this program,' Donley told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Pentagon's fiscal 2013 budget calls for postponing production of 179 F-35 planes to save $15.1 billion over the next five years, as the U.S. military begins to implement $487 billion in spending cuts over the next decade.
Slowing development would also avert costly retrofits if further issues arise during flight testing.
Donley said the decision to slow down production would probably add some cost to the program, but he said it would also save money if additional problems came up during testing, necessitating retrofits of planes already produced.
'It adds time to the program and that usually means costs,' he said.
He said the Pentagon was working on an adjusted cost estimate for the program, with details to be shared with Congress later this spring.
Pentagon leaders have said they are not scaling back their plans to buy a total of 2,443 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, but Donley's comments indicate the procurement target may not hold indefinitely if additional issues arise.
Current plans call for the Air Force to acquire 1,763 of the stealthy fighter planes, while the Navy and Marine Corps would get a combined total of 680.
Lockheed is building three variants of the radar-evading supersonic warplane for the U.S. military and eight countries that are helping to fund its development -- Britain, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands. Israel and Japan also plan to buy the new fighter.
U.S. officials last week sought to allay concerns over delays and escalating costs for the F-35, telling the eight partner nations at a meeting in Australia that there would be no further delays on the program.
Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.
Den Tandt: Replacement candidates in the wings as F-35 woes mount
By Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News March 20, 2012 6:03 PM Be the first to post a comment
As the Tories batten the hatches ahead of an auditor general's report expected to be highly critical of the F-35 fighter jet procurement, indications are the government now intends to move into a holding pattern on the controversial project
As the Tories batten the hatches ahead of an auditor general's report expected to be highly critical of the F-35 fighter jet procurement, indications are the government now intends to move into a holding pattern on the controversial project, awaiting further developments in the U.S. and internationally before making a final decision on a purchase, which could come anytime between six months and a year from now.
Meantime, defence industry players in Ottawa are quietly laying the table for what many now expect will be the eventual unwinding of the sole-sourced program, which has been plagued by delays, technical glitches and cost overruns, to be replaced by an international competition. The likeliest contenders, should there be a competition, are U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet, and Dassault of France, maker of the Rafale.
Both are twin-engined aircraft, which adds an element of safety in the Far North that the single-engine F-35 does not have. The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. The Super Hornet has the advantage of being in wide use already around the world, and would be highly "interoperable" both with NATO air forces and with Canada's existing, aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighters.
Both aircraft makers, proponents of a competition say, would offer greater access to their aircraft's so-called "source code," than Lockheed Martin has been willing to provide for the F-35.
"In our world we're already in a competition," one industry insider said. "(Associate Defence Minister) Fantino himself said we're basically looking at our options. There's a team at (Department of National Defence) looking at the market. So it's already on."
For the past six months, as first reported here last October, the Harper government has been increasingly perplexed internally, while putting up a brave face externally, as it became clear that the original costing for 65 F-35 planes, at $9 billion, was no longer realistic. With service costs factored in, the original cost estimate was actually closer to $16 billion. Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has projected the planes would cost closer to $30 billion, all in.
The reality now is that no one now knows how much 65 F-35s will cost, because the number of planes to be built and the timetable are in question, and the unit price in any given production year depends on both. The Pentagon has pledged to buy 2,443 of the planes. International partners, of whom there were eight originally — Canada, Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom — had been expected to buy an additional 700, give or take. But delays and cancellations have led to an upwardly spiralling price, which has created further pressure for more cancellations. The Pentagon itself recently dropped 13 aircraft from its 2013 buy and postponed 179 unit purchases between next year and 2017.
Following meetings of the consortium in Washington and in Sydney, the Pentagon last week sought to reassure its partners (recently joined by Japan, which has pledged to buy 42 F-35s, as long as costs don't rise further) that there will be no more delays. Apparently not reassured, Fantino last week for the first time raised the prospect of pulling out. Last Friday, he reiterated that the government's base budget of $9 billion for new fighters is fixed. The implication is that a climbing unit price necessarily means fewer planes, or perhaps a different plane altogether.
This raises further complications, however, because the Royal Canadian Air Force's mission parameters for defending Canadian air space require, at minimum, 65 planes. The existing CF-18 fleet had been projected, with upgrades, to last until 2017 or 2018. Last week, Fantino, again for the first time, raised the prospect of extending the life of the CF-18s to 2020-23.
Flying reduced numbers of new F-35s alongside older CF-18s may therefore be an option. Additionally, the government is considering buying up to half a dozen Reaper armed drones, which, though not a substitute for piloted craft, could be used in an expeditionary role
The bottom line, though, is that any additional significant change in Lockheed-Martin's timetable or costing, could be the tipping point that pushes the Conservatives to start from scratch, allowing them to do so without losing standing with the U.S. and other allies. Insiders note that the original F-35 memorandum of understanding states that procurement is to be done according to each nation's standards and laws — meaning that holding a competition would not violate the letter of the agreement, as long as the F-35 had a fair shot at competing alongside the rest.
International fighter aircraft likely to be in the running, should there be a competition (in addition to the F-35, Rafale and Super Hornet) are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Eurofighter is deemed unlikely to make an aggressive bid, because one of its partner developers, Britain-based BAE Systems, is already deeply involved in the F-35 program. Swedish manufacturer Saab is hampered by Sweden's not being a member of NATO.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
UK says Eurofighter still in frame for UAE jets deal
European defence group Eurofighter is still in the running to sign a multi-billion dollar deal for fighter jets for the UAE, British ministers said on Tuesday, following reports that France is close to clinching the contract.
The Gulf Arab state had been expected to reach a $10bn agreement with France's Dassault last year, but the talks faltered after the UAE called the proposed terms "uncompetitive and unworkable".
A French newspaper reported in February the Dassault deal was back on, with the UAE ready to buy 60 of its Rafale jets in March or April.
That would be another boost for the French company after India gave it preferred bidder status for a fighter deal.
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/uk-says-eurofighter-still-in-frame-for-uae-jets-deal-450712.html
Er zullen vast wel weer kostverhogingen gemeld worden en dan nog niet eens te spreken over de verhogingen die komen van de nodige op te lossen problemen.
Pentagon Finalizing New Cost Estimate for F-35 Program
The U.S. Defense Department is finalizing paperwork that will unveil a new total program cost estimate for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program in "just a few days," according to the Navy admiral who oversees the multibillion dollar effort.
Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has "indicated his approval" of the program re-baseline, which was required after the program's price tag exceeded congressionally set spending limits in 2010, said Vice Adm. David Venlet after a March 20 House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing.
"We've had our meetings and he's certainly ... indicated his approval," Venlet, the F-35 program manager, said. "We've got some paperwork signing to do and that will happen in a matter of just a few days."
A prior Pentagon cost estimate for development and production of 2,443 jets topped $380 billion. A new acquisition decision memorandum — a document signed by the Pentagon's top weapons buyer that approve a procurement milestone — is expected to include a new total cost estimate for the entire F-35 program.
The Pentagon plans to send the updated F-35 cost figures, as well as those of other programs, to Congress "in just a couple of weeks," Venlet said.
At the same time, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan auditing arm of Congress, said that since 2010, the total cost of the F-35 programs is estimated to have increased $15 billion. Of that increase, $5 billion of is for development and $10 billion in production, according to a GAO report submitted to Congress at the March 20 hearing.
While the F-35 program has made advancements in testing over the past year, GAO cautioned that DoD must still solve major development issues involving software, the mission system and helmet mounted display.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120320/DEFREG02/303200012/Pentagon-Finalizing-New-Cost-Estimate-F-35-Program?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Lockheed F-35 Overruns Top $1 Billion, Government Auditor Finds
Tony Capaccio | Bloomberg
"Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)'s first 63 F-35 fighter jets are exceeding their combined target cost by $1 billion, showing the Pentagon's costliest program lacks a reliable design and efficient manufacturing, according to U.S. congressional auditors.
The Pentagon is absorbing $672 million and Lockheed Martin the remaining $328 million in added costs for the aircraft in the first four production contracts..."
"""Engineering changes have been persisting at relatively high rates and additional changes will be needed as testing continues," the GAO said today. "Manufacturing processes and performance indicators show some progress, but performance on the first low-initial production contracts has not been good.""
"The $1 billion in cost increases for the first 63 aircraft is on top of $373 million the Pentagon already has incurred for corrections of deficiencies discovered in development testing."
"The overruns, likely additional concurrency retrofitting costs and projected annual spending put at "major risk" the program's "overall affordability," the GAO said. "The program's strategic framework, laden with concurrency, has proved to be problematic and ultimately, a very costly approach," according to the agency."
"The risks will "progressively decline," he said in his testimony. "There is no known design issue that cannot be overcome by effective engineering," Kendall said. "There is much work still ahead but we believe we have put the program on sound footing," he said."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-2 ... finds.html
Dat is dus $ 1 miljard dollar + extra $ 373 miljoen = $ 1,373 miljard overschrijding voor 63 toestellen = $ 21,7 miljoen per toestel !!
More cost overruns, delays and uncertainty for F-35
Phillip Ewing | DoD Buzz
"The overall cost estimate for the whole program is now close to $400 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office, and although investigators were careful to note the progress DoD and Lockheed Martin have made in the past year, the overall picture remained very bleak."
"Sullivan said he had five main worries about the program:
- Its infamous software;
- the ongoing engineering changes necessitated by discoveries in flight testing;
- the sustained cost of the program, which will average about $13 billion per year from now until 2035 (!);
- the mission system "validation," including the F-35's off-board Autonomic Logistics Information System;
- the complexity of the global supplier base.
On software, Sullivan said the F-35's 24 million lines of code are "as complicated as anything on earth," and it'll take all of them working as intended before the F-35 can perform as advertised. On cost, GAO's report reinforces the worry that defense analysts have been voicing for years — the large sustained yearly costs for the F-35 not only will continue more or less in perpetuity, but in the case of the Air Force, they'll come due even as the service must also buy full-rate production KC-46A tankers and new bombers.
F-35 program boss Vice Adm. David Venlet told lawmakers he still does not have an estimate for when the F-35 will reach its initial operational capability, although the committee members could not be bothered to ask why. GAO's report gives an explanation: The program is not performing reliably enough for them to try to guess: "Until greater clarity is provided on the program's path forward, the military services are likely to wait to commit to new initial operational capability dates," GAO said."
"And one of the central "achievements" of the program over the last year — the lifting of the B's "probation" — may not have meant anything at all. Not only because "probation" was a non-thing, as you've read here, but because the "fixes" engineers proposed are themselves temporary, GAO found:
"While several technical issues have been addressed and some potential solutions engineered, assessing whether the deficiencies are resolved is ongoing and, in some cases, will not be known for years. According to the program office, two of the five specific problems cited are considered to be fixed while the other three have temporary fixes in place. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation reported that significant work remains to verify and incorporate modifications to correct known STOVL deficiencies and prepare the system for operational use. Until the proposed technical solutions have been fully tested and demonstrated, it cannot be determined if the technical problems have been resolved.""
Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/20/more- ... z1phNQCw62
DoDBuzz.com
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER Restructuring Added Resources and Reduced Risk, but Concurrency Is Still a Major Concern
Statement of Michael J. Sullivan, Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf
interessant stuk van de GAO !! vooral de lange termijn voorspellingen voor ontwikkeling en kosten
Figuur 1 : productie aantallen en de voorspellingen van afgelopen jaren
Tabel 2 : kostenoverschrijdingen van LRIP 1 t/m 4 gemiddeld 11,1 %
Figuur 4 : ontwerpveranderingen, ze hebben veel meer ontwerpveranderingen gehad dan verwacht en ze verwachten nog veel meer veranderingen en dit loopt door tot in 2020.
Tabel 3 : nog te maken investeringen inrelatie met de testvluchten, ze verwachten nu dat ze in 2017 klaar zijn met alle testvluchten. Dus pas over 5 jaar !!
De huidige F35 prijs is één. de vraag is wat de operationele productie series gaan kosten vanaf 2019.
Ik blijf bij mijn vermoeden dat de diverse luchtmachten, waaronder de Klu, in meerder batches haar bestelling zal plaatsen.
(los van nationale en internationale politieke beslissingen)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/03/2012 | 10:23 uur
De huidige F35 prijs is één. de vraag is wat de operationele productie series gaan kosten vanaf 2019.
Ik blijf bij mijn vermoeden dat de diverse luchtmachten, waaronder de Klu, in meerder batches haar bestelling zal plaatsen.
(los van nationale en internationale politieke beslissingen)
Maar ...... hebben wij daar budget voor gereserveerd ?? ... niet dat ik weet
Ik weet niet anders dan dat wij 4,5 miljard hebben voor aankoop en 10 miljard voor exploitatiekosten voor 20/30 jaar
en niet nog eens een "potje" van 4,5 miljard voor aankoop ergens in het jaar 2020.
Mij is altijd geleerd :
1) geld kun je maar 1 keer uitgeven, dus denk er goed over na voordat je het uitgeeft
2) je kunt niet meer uitgeven dan dat je in je portemonaie hebt.
ach .. misschien ben ik wel van de "oude " stempel al heb ik daar mijn leeftijd niet naar .... ;)
Citaat van: Harald op 21/03/2012 | 11:42 uur
Maar ...... hebben wij daar budget voor gereserveerd ?? ... niet dat ik weet
Ik weet niet anders dan dat wij 4,5 miljard hebben voor aankoop en 10 miljard voor exploitatiekosten voor 20/30 jaar
en niet nog eens een "potje" van 4,5 miljard voor aankoop ergens in het jaar 2020.
Mij is altijd geleerd :
1) geld kun je maar 1 keer uitgeven, dus denk er goed over na voordat je het uitgeeft
2) je kunt niet meer uitgeven dan dat je in je portemonaie hebt.
ach .. misschien ben ik wel van de "oude " stempel al heb ik daar mijn leeftijd niet naar .... ;)
Werkelijk geen idee. Met een pennenstreek hebben ze het gereserveerde budget neerwaards bijgesteld, met een pennenstreek is het naar boven aan te passen.
Het e.e.a. zal afhangen van economische en politieke ontwikkelingen, iets wat voor diverse landen geldt die de JSF op het verlanglijstje hebben staan.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/03/2012 | 11:47 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 21/03/2012 | 11:42 uur
Maar ...... hebben wij daar budget voor gereserveerd ?? ... niet dat ik weet
Ik weet niet anders dan dat wij 4,5 miljard hebben voor aankoop en 10 miljard voor exploitatiekosten voor 20/30 jaar
en niet nog eens een "potje" van 4,5 miljard voor aankoop ergens in het jaar 2020.
Mij is altijd geleerd :
1) geld kun je maar 1 keer uitgeven, dus denk er goed over na voordat je het uitgeeft
2) je kunt niet meer uitgeven dan dat je in je portemonaie hebt.
ach .. misschien ben ik wel van de "oude " stempel al heb ik daar mijn leeftijd niet naar .... ;)
Werkelijk geen idee. Met een pennenstreek hebben ze het gereserveerde budget neerwaards bijgesteld, met een pennenstreek is het naar boven aan te passen.
Het e.e.a. zal afhangen van economische en politieke ontwikkelingen, iets wat voor diverse landen geldt die de JSF op het verlanglijstje hebben staan.
Het is nog gekker als je kijkt naar het verleden.
1998 - 2005 85 JSF voor 4,5 Miljard
2005 - 2006 85 JSF voor 5,5 Miljard
2006 - 2011 85 JSF voor 6,276 Miljard
2011 - heden 85 JSF voor ---- 4,5 miljard..
is dat natte vinger werk of niet:)
Citaat van: Chrisis op 21/03/2012 | 14:35 uur
Het is nog gekker als je kijkt naar het verleden.
1998 - 2005 85 JSF voor 4,5 Miljard
2005 - 2006 85 JSF voor 5,5 Miljard
2006 - 2011 85 JSF voor 6,276 Miljard
2011 - heden 85 JSF voor ---- 4,5 miljard..
is dat natte vinger werk of niet:)
en het wordt nog gekker als je bij het Budget van 1998 => 4,5 miljard de inflatiecorrectie erbijgaat tellen, dus van 1998 tot 2012 = 14 jaar 3% erbij
1998 = 4,5 miljard euro = 100%
2012 = met elk jaar 3% inflatie erbij 151% = 6,8 miljard euro
dus dat budget van 2006-2011 was dus realistisch met de inflatiecorrectie erbij
Citaat van: Harald op 21/03/2012 | 14:46 uur
en het wordt nog gekker als je bij het Budget van 1998 => 4,5 miljard de inflatiecorrectie erbijgaat tellen, dus van 1998 tot 2012 = 14 jaar 3% erbij
1998 = 4,5 miljard euro = 100%
2012 = met elk jaar 3% inflatie erbij 151% = 6,8 miljard euro
dus dat budget van 2006-2011 was dus realistisch met de inflatiecorrectie erbij
En met de huidige (geschatte) prijs hebben we budget voor net iets meer dan 30 exemplaren. Ik zou zeggen maak er een B variant van, koop er 24, plaats hiervan 12 operationeel op een nog te bouwen assault ship, gebruik Volkel als NAS en voor QRA.
Daarmee is VLBL ook exit.
Als de Klu zich zelf zo graag wil naaien, dan ook meteen goed... :sick:
Oeps: off topic!
Ik begrijp ook niet waarom de Klu zo blijft vasthouden aan het hele JSF gebeuren. Als we straks nog maar 30 toestellen krijgen, waarvan er weer zeker 12 in de VS zullen staan en 12 in onderhoud zullen zijn..kan je bijna niets inzetten als het een keer echt moet.
Beter lijkt mij dan om het het JSF projekt los te laten en te gaan voor de Rafale of de Grippen en dan voor minimaal 75 stuks.
Maar waar wapendeals zijn is corruptie daar weet bijvoorbeeld de overleden Prins Bernhard alles van, zou me ook niets verbazen als
over pakweg 15 jaar weer een aantal figuren gepakt wordt voor corruptie met betrekking tot de JSF deal.
Een ander voorbeeld is indertijd het AR-10 aanvalgeweer..ontwikkeld en geproduceerd in Nederland en de voorloper van de M-16...
waarom heeft het Nederlandse leger indertijd niet dit superieure geweer aangeschaft ? mijn vader liep in die tijd pakweg 1960 nog met een LeeEnfield of een M1 karabijntje rond, andere hadden Garants.....terwijl een alternatief een veel beter alternatief van Nederlands fabrikaat beschikbaar was.
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 21/03/2012 | 18:20 uur
Ik begrijp ook niet waarom de Klu zo blijft vasthouden aan het hele JSF gebeuren. Als we straks nog maar 30 toestellen krijgen, waarvan er weer zeker 12 in de VS zullen staan en 12 in onderhoud zullen zijn..kan je bijna niets inzetten als het een keer echt moet.
Beter lijkt mij dan om het het JSF projekt los te laten en te gaan voor de Rafale of de Grippen en dan voor minimaal 75 stuks.
Maar waar wapendeals zijn is corruptie daar weet bijvoorbeeld de overleden Prins Bernhard alles van, zou me ook niets verbazen als
over pakweg 15 jaar weer een aantal figuren gepakt wordt voor corruptie met betrekking tot de JSF deal.
Een ander voorbeeld is indertijd het AR-10 aanvalgeweer..ontwikkeld en geproduceerd in Nederland en de voorloper van de M-16...
waarom heeft het Nederlandse leger indertijd niet dit superieure geweer aangeschaft ? mijn vader liep in die tijd pakweg 1960 nog met een LeeEnfield of een M1 karabijntje rond, andere hadden Garants.....terwijl een alternatief een veel beter alternatief van Nederlands fabrikaat beschikbaar was.
Mijn vader liep in 1980 nog met een Garand rond :dead: In een handboek van het leger(1988) staat de Garand er ook nog gewoon in...
Citaat van: Harald op 21/03/2012 | 11:42 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/03/2012 | 10:23 uur
Ik blijf bij mijn vermoeden dat de diverse luchtmachten, waaronder de Klu, in meerder batches haar bestelling zal plaatsen.
Ik weet niet anders dan dat wij 4,5 miljard hebben voor aankoop en 10 miljard voor exploitatiekosten voor 20/30 jaar
en niet nog eens een "potje" van 4,5 miljard voor aankoop ergens in het jaar 2020.
1. Een batch of 2 batches, de eerste F-16A/B batch a 102 kisten was bedoeld als '104' vervanger. Toen kwam er een tweede batch a 111 kisten, omdat besloten werd dat het 'Dinky Toy' bul (NF-5, betrouwbare jachtbommenwerper overigens) vanwege standaardisatie ook vervangen diende te worden door de F-16. Volgens mij wordt de F-16 vervanger gewoon in 1 batch a 25 - 35 kisten besteld.
En hopelijk met eerste leveringen in 2019, anders krijgen we dezelfde situatie als met de KM Lynx vloot.
2. De EUR 4,5 miljard voor de F-16 vervanger aanschaf is niet in graniet gebeiteld. Ik verwacht niet dat dit budget naar boven wordt bijgesteld.
We hebben helemaal GEEN begroting van totaal EUR 10+ miljard voor de F-16 vervanger exploitatie kosten gedurende 30 jaar of EUR 333,3 miljoen per jaar.
De jaarlijkse jachtvliegtuig begroting is heden t/m 2015 zelfs iets minder dan de helft van het laatst genoemde bedrag!
PM hints at Joint Strike Fighter U-turn
21 March 2012 | UK
The Prime Minister told MPs today his Government was prepared to change defence purchases when the costs change, amid speculation of a embarrassing U-turn on fighters for Britain's new aircraft carriers.
David Cameron said the approach marked a stark change from the last Labour government, suggesting money had been wasted previously.
Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, Labour MP Tom insisted the Strategic Defence and Security Review was "unravelling".
Ministers are said to be considering whether to revert to the original plan on carrier jets by the former Labour government to acquire the F-35B "jump jet" variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.
That proposal was dropped in the 2010 SDSR which opted instead to switch to the F-35C carrier version, which has a longer range, can carry more weapons and is interoperable with the French and US navies.
Mr Greatrex said: "You may recall that at the time of the SDSR you described it as a mistake and an error to use the short take-off, vertical landing variant of the JSF.
"As the Ministry of Defence is about to perform a U-turn on that decision to rescind that original decision, don't you now accept and understand the real mistake and error has been in a defence review that has been inadequate and is fast unravelling."
Mr Cameron said: "The real mistake and error was inheriting a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget.
"What the Defence Secretary wants is to be the first Defence Secretary in a generation to announce a balanced and funded budget for defence this year and for many years to come.
"That is what we are discussing. We will look at all of the evidence, all of the costings - and costings as you know will change in defence.
"But I do make this pledge. Unlike previous governments, if costs change, and if facts change, we won't just plough on regardless and make wrong decisions for political reasons."
http://bfbs.com/news/uk/pm-hints-joint-strike-fighter-u-turn-55896.html
Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster
By David Axe
March 21, 2012
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon's future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.
At an estimated $1 trillion to develop, purchase and support through 2050, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 was already the most expensive conventional weapons program ever even before Tuesday's bulletins. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are counting on buying as many as 2,500 F-35s to replace almost every tactical jet in their current inventories. More than a dozen foreign countries are lined up to acquire the stealthy, single-engine fighter, as well.
In its report the GAO reserved its most dire language for the JSF's software, which agency expert Michael Sullivan said is "as complicated as anything on earth." The new jet needs nearly 10 million lines of on-board code, compared to 5 million for the older F-22 and just 1.5 million for the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet. "Software providing essential JSF capability has grown in size and complexity, and is taking longer to complete than expected," the GAO warned.
Software delays plus continuing mechanical and safety problems prompted JSF program chief Adm. David Venlet to back away from a firm schedule for the new fighter's frontline introduction. When the F-35 was conceived in the late 1990s, it was expected to begin flying combat missions as early as 2010. Lately military officials have mentioned 2018 as a likely start date. In his Congressional testimony, Venlet declined to even mention a possible timeframe for the JSF's service entry.
The GAO predicts the JSF's $400-billion combined development and production cost will grow later this year, once the Pentagon computes a new program "baseline" — something it's already done no fewer than five times since 2001. Aside from a 400-plane reduction in 2003, the Pentagon has always opted to increase the program's budget rather than cut production numbers. That's no longer possible, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told Congress. "To the extent that there continue to be cost growth or challenges ... we'll have to take down the number of aircraft," he said.
Air Combat Command, which oversees most of the Air Force's fighter squadrons, seconded Donley's view. "We cannot simply buy our way out of our problems or shortfalls as we have been able to do in the past," the command stated in a report last week.
If cuts do occur, the U.S. will be in good company. Australia, Canada and Japan have already begun backing away from the troubled JSF as the new plane has gradually exceeded their budgets. For these countries, alternatives include the Super Hornet and an upgraded F-15 from Boeing, Lockheed's new F-16V and the European Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen fighters. But so far the U.S. military prefers the F-35, even if the stealthy jet is more than a decade late, twice a expensive as originally projected and available in fewer numbers. "We will remain committed to the long-term success of the F-35 program," Air Combat Command asserted.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/
Aust looking at average $US70m per JSF
Max Blenkin, AAP Defence Correspondent
March 22, 2012 - 4:04PMRead later
AAP
Australia can still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) for each Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, even as production of the next generation F-35s ramps up.
The head of the JSF program for US aerospace company Lockheed Martin, Tom Burbage, said production was now running at four aircraft per month.
"We believe over the purchase time of your 75 airplanes, that cost will average out somewhere around $US70 million ($A67 million)," he told reporters in Canberra.
"The early ones will be more, the later ones will be less.
"It is dependent on an assumption that we are going to go up in the production rate."
Australia is now committed to buying 14 of the advanced Lockheed Martin F-35 JSFs, with two arriving in 2014 and another 12 scheduled for delivery between 2015 and 2017.
Defence is likely to make a decision on the next tranche next year.
But over time, Australia is set to buy as many as 100 of the advanced jet fighters to form the core of the nation's air combat capability out to the middle of the century.
Production of the first parts for the first Australian aircraft starts soon.
Australia's first JSF aircraft will be produced in what's termed low rate initial production (LRIP) lots, with aircraft contracted at a fixed price.
Mr Burbage, who is in Australia for talks with the government, defence officials and local companies making JSF parts, also responded to criticism of the program which will also supply the aircraft to the US, UK, Canada and their allies.
There are concerns the program is costing too much, running late and the resulting aircraft will be outmatched by modern Russian and Chinese aircraft.
Mr Burbage said so far, 16 top tier air forces had fully assessed JSF and they were all still backing it.
"So I would put my stock in their evaluations and their take on what the airplane is going to be capable of doing," he said.
Mr Burbage said those views counted for more than those from a series of pundits who lacked access to all the JSF information and refused to accept that it would be highly capable.
"I often wonder to myself how much faster could we go and how much easier would this program be if we weren't constantly in a defensive crouch, trying to hold off these allegations," he said.
Mr Burbage said had Lockheed spent time trying to understand the capabilities of the aircraft most often tipped as fifth generation opponents to the JSF - the Russian PAK-FA and the Chinese J-20.
"We don't fully understand them yet," he said.
"That they are going to that type of airplane and that type of capability would indicate that what we are doing is pretty important."
The F35s will be used to replace Australia's existing Hornet and F-111 aircraft.
© 2012 AAP
Fighter Trends Change For 2020 And Beyond
The past few years have made it abundantly clear that the mid-term future of airpower is not what a lot of people planned. Large-scale procurement of the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has slipped into the 2020s. The aircraft types in service today—which made their first flights as much as 40 years ago—will be the world's frontline fleets through the rest of this decade, and will make up the majority of fighting forces well into the 2020s.
This does not mean that technological and operational progress has stopped. Fighters delivered in the 2010s may not look new from the other end of the flight line, but at closer range, the changes are very important.
Possibly the ultimate example of this trend is the Russian Su-35S. Aviation Week & Space Technology revealed the existence of its progenitor, the Su-27, in 1977, when it was identified by Western intelligence as RAM-K. With fully integrated flight and propulsion control, an as-yet unique wide-angle radar, a big-screen cockpit and a structural overhaul, the Su-35S will carry the design into the 2030s.
Not all the technologies being fitted into new-production and upgraded fighters today are completely new. Active, electronically scanned array radars, satcoms, onboard active electronic warfare (EW) suites and helmet-mounted displays have been around for a while. However, they have all become less expensive, more reliable and better performing, and (more importantly) the computer power to make them work together is now affordable.
The result is another advance in the characteristics that convince governments and air forces to keep buying these expensive machines. Combat capability is important: survivability, lethality, precision and the fact that they put a human operator over the target.
But what makes fighter aircraft unique among military systems is versatility, in two dimensions. The first dimension is across missions: Almost any combat asset, from a machine-gun-toting Toyota to a cruiser, can be a fighter target. The second dimension, which we are now seeing exploited, is adaptability across time.
The Singapore air force's F-15 and F-16 on display at last month's air show in the Southeast Asian republic typify that adaptability. Both were designed as pure air-to-air fighters, but armed and configured as self-defending strikers. They carried the Lockheed Martin Lantirn and Sniper targeting pods—representing a class of systems that has turned fighters into precision bombers, close air support (CAS) platforms and intelligence gatherers. Both carry active EW to address improvements in defensive systems. They have conformal fuel tanks, trading fighter performance for range and versatility. Lockheed Martin also chose Singapore to unveil the F-16V upgrade and new-production variant, further extending the fighter's life.
The improvements reflect changes in mission. Both aircraft were designed to go against the Warsaw Pact's massed regiments of fighters, sparking the classic and very truthful joke: Two Soviet generals, watching the victory parade on the Champs Elysees, and one says, "Such a pity, Comrade, that we lost the air battle." Guided by AirLand Battle doctrine, the F-15E and F-16 Block 30/40 added air-to-ground precision weapons to counter Warsaw Pact armor and logistics.
Today, CAS, air policing and nontraditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance lead the way—missions in which the fighter becomes even more networked with other systems, and where sensors, weapons and communications may be more important than platform performance. They are also missions associated with long campaigns and routine operations, stressing operating costs and durability.
And tomorrow? More air forces are taking advantage of the availability of affordable airborne early warning and control systems to refine the common operational air picture for their fighters. Networking has vast benefits, if done properly and made resistant to enemy action. New weapons—the Small-Diameter Bomb Increment II, France's versatile Hammer and the promising Meteor air-to-air missile—will keep today's platforms lethal. In the longer term, networking points to the increasing integration of manned and unmanned vehicles.
By Bill Sweetman
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p57-435021.xml&headline=Fighter Trends Change For 2020 And Beyond
Toch dan ook maar eens een negatief aandachtspunt voor de Saab Gripen EF (NG).
De beoogde Zwitserse bestelling van 22 stuks gaat c.a. 2,2 miljard Zfr kosten (exclusief eventuele montage kosten in Zwitserland, begroot voor Zfr 250 mjn additioneel)
Omgerekend betekent dit 100 mjn Zfr (€ 83 mjn) per Gripen.
Stel dat een luchtmacht € 4,5 mjd vervangingsbudget (prognose) te beschikking heeft, dan levert dat "slechts" 54 Gripen E/F (NG) op.
Volgens diverse bronnen is hiermee de Gripen NG duurder in aanschaf dan een F18E of een F15SE (volgens huidige euro - dollar koers)
OPINION – Int'l JSF partners need to ramp it up
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 1:22 pm, Thursday March 22 2012 1 Comment
The international partners in the JSF program – including Australia – really need to come together to lobby the US government to recognise the disproportionate share of the early production costs of the F-35 they will be forced to pay in the next five years.
The combined partner nation JSF requirement is about 750 aircraft, less than a third of the US's stated long-term requirement of 2,443. But the US's FY13 budget has proposed moving 179 F-35s five years to the right to effectively cap US low rate initial production (LRIP) production at about 30 aircraft a year until 2016 – ostensibly because of production and development 'concurrency' issues, but more likely because of the US budget crisis.
But by deferring these 179 jets in order to supposedly save about $6 million in concurrency issue repair costs per aircraft for the aircraft it doesn't buy, the US will in effect pay about $10 million more per unit for the aircraft it does buy... and so will the partners. On top of this, the US has also earmarked about $2 billion to upgrade 300 USAF F-16s because of the slower F-35 service introduction, while partner nations are also having to consider further legacy fighter upgrade programs or gap-bridging buys.
Because of the US slowdown, the partner nations and early FMS customers like Israel and Japan will actually be taking more jets than the three US customer forces combined during this period, and will thus be paying a higher unit cost for these aircraft than they would otherwise have – as much as 10 per cent more – due to the lower than expected US build numbers.
So while we may have seen the start of a movement between the partners with a Canadian-led gathering in Washington in early March, the partners need to take it to the next level and demand a more proportionate deal from the US, not just for the aircraft's acquisition, but also for the industrial participation of their local industries.
Andrew McLaughlin
http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/03/opinion-intl-jsf-partners-need-to-ramp-it-up/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/03/2012 | 10:58 uur
Toch dan ook maar eens een negatief aandachtspunt voor de Saab Gripen EF (NG).
De beoogde Zwitserse bestelling van 22 stuks gaat c.a. 2,2 miljard Zfr kosten (exclusief eventuele montage kosten in Zwitserland, begroot voor Zfr 250 mjn additioneel)
Omgerekend betekent dit 100 mjn Zfr (€ 83 mjn) per Gripen.
Stel dat een luchtmacht € 4,5 mjd vervangingsbudget (prognose) te beschikking heeft, dan levert dat "slechts" 54 Gripen E/F (NG) op.
Volgens diverse bronnen is hiermee de Gripen NG duurder in aanschaf dan een F18E of een F15SE (volgens huidige euro - dollar koers)
@Jurriën,
Dit soort vergelijkingen hoe aantrekkelijk ook is nooit helemaal correct te doen. Het blijft giswerk. Wat willen de Zwitsers er allemaal bij, wat willen ze anders of eventueel op maat.
Die vergelijkingen van straaljagers is zonder een volledige open analyse gewoon niet te maken. Ook op het gebied van de JSF waag ik me over het algemeen niet om cijfers te (re)produceren. Wat ik daarvan wel weet is dat de JSF gewoon enorm duur MOET worden. Dat kan niet anders met al die problemen, verschuiven van productieaantallen etc.
Bij de Gripen weet je gewoon niet voldoende. Saab bood Nederland de Gripen aan in 2008/2009 voor een vast bedrag van 4.792 Miljoen Euro. (*Prices are in Euro: 1 EUR = 9.4 SEK (conditions April 2008).) Dat betrof 85 toestellen Plus één flight-test aircraft.
Daar zat zo'n beetje alles bij: kort samengevat:
Citaat85 Gripen NG Aircraft (1 Flight Test Aircraft)
- Engine
- Radar
- Flight Test Instrumentation Equipment
- Display System
Training and training aids
- Full Mission Simulator
- Mission Trainer
- Virtual Maintenance Trainer
- Desktop Training System
- Computer Based Training System
- Pilot Training
- Maintenance Training
- Training for Operation & Maintenance of Mission Support Equipment and Training Devices
Other
- Role equipment (Aircrew Equipment, Helmet Mounted Display Systems, IRST Systems, Electronic Warfare Systems, Fuel Drop Tanks, Pylon Sets)
- Mission support equipment (Mission Support Systems, Digital Map Generating System, Threat Library Support System, Maintenance Ground Support
Systems, Radio Frequency Planning System)
- Logistic Support (Ground Support Equipment, technical publications, facility requirements, Consumable Spare Parts, Field Service Representatives,
Pilot Support)
Dat kwam toen op zo'n 56,4 miljoen per deelsysteem (gedeeld door 85)
Dar zal nog wel wat infatie en valuta wisselingen tegenover staan om de huidige stand te berkenen.
Het lijkt mij echt te simpel om die vergelijking zo te trekken.
Ik meen me ergens te herinneren dat die prijs is inclusief 30 jaar exploitatiekosten in het totaalpakket.
CitaatDie Beschaffung als Gesamtpaket
Die Beschaffung sieht nicht nur 22 Flugzeuge und ihre Missionsausrüstung vor, sondern ein Gesamtpaket, welches auch die Bewaffnung, , das Logistik-Paket, Ausbildungssysteme für Piloten, und die Integration des TTE in die Führungssysteme und weitere Elemente umfasst. Nebst den Beschaffungskosten liegt auch die Schätzung der Betriebskosten während 30 Jahren vor.
Da alle drei Kandidaten die gestellten Anforderungen erfüllen, truppentauglich sind und grundsätzlich als Teilersatz für den Tiger F-5 in Frage kommen, sind die finanziellen Aspekte des Gesamtpakets von entscheidender Bedeutung. Denn das VBS muss alles daran setzen, dass eine Beschaffung eines neuen Kampfflugzeuges für die Armee finanziell tragbar ist - dies auch mittel- und längerfristig, um möglichst viele Ressourcen auch für weitere dringende Bedürfnisse der Armee verwenden zu können.
Aus diesem Grund hat sich der Bundesrat auf Antrag des VBS für den Typ Gripen E/F der schwedischen Firma Saab entschieden, der einerseits die gestellten Anforderungen erfüllt und andererseits finanziell tragbar ist - und damit die optimale Lösung für das Gesamtsystem Armee darstellt.
http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/documentation/news/news_detail.43408.nsb.html (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/documentation/news/news_detail.43408.nsb.html)
Kleine partijen zijn sowiezo vaak duurder per kist. Kijk naar de Australische Super Hornets...
Citaat van: IPA NG op 22/03/2012 | 18:59 uur
Kleine partijen zijn sowiezo vaak duurder per kist. Kijk naar de Australische Super Hornets...
Zondermeer waar. Waarbij ik me niet kan voorstellen dat de Saab offerte voor de BV Nederland nog steeds geldig is.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/03/2012 | 20:09 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 22/03/2012 | 18:59 uur
Kleine partijen zijn sowiezo vaak duurder per kist. Kijk naar de Australische Super Hornets...
Zondermeer waar. Waarbij ik me niet kan voorstellen dat de Saab offerte voor de BV Nederland nog steeds geldig is.
Dat is een ander verhaal
Citaat van: Chrisis op 22/03/2012 | 20:44 uur
Dat is een ander verhaal
Toch niet helemaal, als ik goed begrijp wat Zweden zelf voor zijn 60-80 nieuwe Gripen E/F (NG) gaat betalen dan is het wel degelijk relevant.
Laten we niet alles met de mantel der liefde bedekken omdat het een Saab betreft, dat geeft immers gelijksoortige "oogkleppen" als de JSF lobby.
F-35 delays may cost Australia billions
CANBERRA, Australia, March 22 (UPI) — Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith has decided to delay an order for more JSF F-35 fighters.
The Royal Australian Air Force is scheduled to receive a second batch of 58 Joint Strike Fighters, and Smith's decision to delay the order is being criticized, as it may increase their final cost.
Both Ministry of Defense and industry critics say the decision could create the air warfare capability gap the government says it is trying to avoid, The Canberra Times reported Thursday.
Last month Smith told Parliament he worried that "a delay in the production of the Joint Strike Fighter and the aging of our classic Hornets" would create an air warfare capability gap.
Lockheed Martin Vice President Tom Burbage told a parliamentary defense committee the postponement of plane orders by the U.S. and other governments impacted by the global financial crisis was "the single largest contributor to the increases in the unit cost of the F-35," and he urged the Australian government to "stay the course" to keep the production line for the sophisticated fifth-generation stealth fighter running at maximum efficiency.
http://www.omglobe.com/2012/03/22/business-news/f-35-delays-may-cost-australia-billions/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/03/2012 | 23:13 uur
The Royal Australian Air Force is scheduled to receive a second batch of 58 Joint Strike Fighters, and Smith's decision to delay the order is being criticized, as it may increase their final cost.
Op de gok: deze Down Under beslissing wordt een feestje voor Boeing, ik verwacht de aanschaf van 24 additionele Super Hornets ten koste van de JSF bestelling.
Voor het gemak, de gewenste 100 JSF gaan naar maximaal 76 F35's (maar ik kan er natuurlijk helemaal naast zitten).
Citaat van: dudge op 22/03/2012 | 23:40 uur
Die ausies zijn best hard-core tegenwoordig. Aangezien de F35 toch aanzienlijk duurder lijkt te worden, zullen ook zij hun order wat moeten bijstellen, maar het lijkt me dat ze er voorlopig nog niet echt een switch zullen maken naar een extra squadron F18E's. Misschien als over 3 jaar de situatie helemaal uit de hand is gelopen, echter, ik verwacht niet dat dat gebeurt.
Down under zijn ze, terecht, bang voor een operationeel tekort omdat de F35 aanzienlijk telaat wort uitgelevert, zij verkeren niet in de Europese "luxe"positie van schijnveiligheid en zullen dit niet accepteren.
Een aanvulling van 24 naar 48 F18E's is in het Australische geval meer dan denkbaar. Laten we niet verggeten dat er dan nog 76 JSF over blijven.
Citaat van: dudge op 22/03/2012 | 23:29 uur
Het is absoluut relevant. De meeste bronnen spreken er echter nog steeds over dat de Gripen het goedkoopste is, en gezien de in het verleden behaalde resultaten, is dat goed mogelijk. Als je vervolgens kijkt naar exploitatiekosten, wordt het verschil helemaal groot.
Als het bedrag dat Poleme noemde klopt, is er zo'n 150 miljoen voor de expliotatie, dat is bij 68 kisten 2.2 miljoen per kist. Bij 36 kisten 4,1. De vraag is dus evenzeer relevant, wat gaat zo'n kist jaarlijks kosten om te opereren? Omdat die kosten wel meegenomen moeten worden. Een Gripen doet volgens sommige bronnen 'slechts' 1-1.5 miljoen per jaar. Aantal toestellen dat we op een normale wijze kunnen gebruiken zou daar dus best hoog kunnen zijn.
In exploitatie zal de een motorige Gripen NG ongetwijfelt het goedkoopste zijn. De aanschaf prijs lijkt nu onduidelijk, een MLU, 10 jaar na aanschaf lijkt niet realistisch.
Wat zijn de kosten van een Gripen vervanger rond 2040 versus een JSF vervanger rond 2060?
Citaat van: dudge op 22/03/2012 | 23:29 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/03/2012 | 21:51 uur
Toch niet helemaal, als ik goed begrijp wat Zweden zelf voor zijn 60-80 nieuwe Gripen E/F (NG) gaat betalen dan is het wel degelijk relevant.
Laten we niet alles met de mantel der liefde bedekken omdat het een Saab betreft, dat geeft immers gelijksoortige "oogkleppen" als de JSF lobby.
Het is absoluut relevant. De meeste bronnen spreken er echter nog steeds over dat de Gripen het goedkoopste is, en gezien de in het verleden behaalde resultaten, is dat goed mogelijk. Als je vervolgens kijkt naar exploitatiekosten, wordt het verschil helemaal groot.
Als het bedrag dat Poleme noemde klopt, is er zo'n 150 miljoen voor de expliotatie, dat is bij 68 kisten 2.2 miljoen per kist. Bij 36 kisten 4,1. De vraag is dus evenzeer relevant, wat gaat zo'n kist jaarlijks kosten om te opereren? Omdat die kosten wel meegenomen moeten worden. Een Gripen doet volgens sommige bronnen 'slechts' 1-1.5 miljoen per jaar. Aantal toestellen dat we op een normale wijze kunnen gebruiken zou daar dus best hoog kunnen zijn.
Jaarlijkse kosten is mede afhankelijk aan de hoeveelheid vlieg-uren. Er zijn bedragen/kosten bekend wat de vlieg-uren-kosten zijn van verschillende toestellen (in dit topic terug te vinden)
Even een paar voorbeelden :
- onze F-16 vliegen per jaar zo'n 175 uur gemiddeld.
- een EF (vlieg-uur-kosten : ca. € 70.000,-) => 175 uur x € 70.000,00 = € 12.250.000,00 euro per jaar
- een F-15E (vlieg-uur-kosten : € 23.000,-) => 175 uur x € 23.000,00 = € 4.025.000,00 euro per jaar
- een Rafale (vlieg-uur-kosten : € 40.000,-) => 175 uur x € 40.000,00 = € 7.000.000,00 euro per jaar
dus als een Gripen € 1,5 miljoen per jaar kost en deelt door 175 vlieg-uren => € 8571,00 euro per vlieg-uur (dit vind ik er laag, want volgens mij kosten onze F-16 iets van rond de € 16.000,00 per vlieg-uur. (weet ik niet geheel zeker).
Citaat van: Harald op 23/03/2012 | 08:47 uur
dus als een Gripen € 1,5 miljoen per jaar kost en deelt door 175 vlieg-uren => € 8571,00 euro per vlieg-uur (dit vind ik er laag, want volgens mij kosten onze F-16 iets van rond de € 16.000,00 per vlieg-uur. (weet ik niet geheel zeker).
En niet te vergeten dat als wij kijken naar de kosten per vlieguur er eigenlijk alleen wordt gerekend vnuit de B/C variant, de E/F (NG) is een volledig andere kist. (al zal deze natuurlijk als één pitter altijd voordeliger zijn dan twee pitter)
Joint Strike Fighter: Overdue and Way Over Budget
By Robert Longley, About.com Guide March 23, 2012
The only thing the long-awaited U.S. F-35 Lightning II jet fighter -- also known as the Joint Strike Fighter - is flying very slowly toward, is becoming the costliest military aircraft in the nation's history, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
Already running more than five years behind schedule, development and production of the planned 2,457 Joint Strike Fighter jets will end up costing nearly $400 billion, or about $1.6 billion per plane, and more than triple the $119 billion estimated when the project was first approved in 2001.
Just since June 2010, the Department of Defense's cost estimate for development of the next-generation fighter have increased by about $5 billion, while the estimate for procurement -- buying parts - has jumped by almost $10 billion. Since 2007, total actual costs of the project has increased by about $119 billion, while full-rate production has been delayed 5 years, according to the GAO.
"As the program continues to experience cost growth and delays, projected annual funding needs are unprecedented, averaging more than $13 billion a year through 2035," the GAO told Congress.
What is the Joint Strike Fighter? The Department of Defense's Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is an advanced, all-weather, air-superiority fighter that utilizes the latest in stealth technology, weapons platforms, propulsion systems and pilot control systems, intended by the DoD to replace hundreds of existing combat aircraft. The JSF program calls for the development of three variations of the plane to serve the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, in addition to eight of the United States' NATO allies.
According to the GAO, the requirement to develop, test and build three different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter at the same time is the main reason for the delays and cost overruns.
"The program can expect more changes to aircraft design and manufacturing processes," states the GAO. "To date, only 4 percent of the mission system requirements for full capability has been verified. Testing of a fully integrated JSF aircraft is now expected in 2015 at the earliest."
The government has already incurred an estimated $373 million in costs to develop and retrofit parts needed to correct deficiencies discovered during testing. "The manufacturing process is still absorbing a higher than expected number of engineering changes resulting from flight testing, which makes it difficult to achieve efficient production rates," noted the GAO.
Gloomily, and almost certainly correctly, the GAO predicts that the delays and cost overruns will continue until the changes stop coming. "Until engineering changes are reduced, there are risks of additional cost overruns and retrofit costs," stated the GAO "The program now estimates that the number of changes will persist at elevated levels through 2019. Even with the substantial reductions in near-term procurement quantities, DOD is still investing billions of dollars on hundreds of aircraft while flight testing has years to go."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2012/03/23/joint-strike-fighter-overdue-and-way-over-budget.htm
New radar technology brings advantages for Eurofighter missions
•Cassidian proves capabilities of a new e-scan radar demonstrated by simulation study
•Significant enhancement of mission success and safety of pilots
Cassidian, the defence and security division of EADS, has demonstrated, in a simulation study, the operational advantages of the Eurofighter's future e-scan radar and has introduced the first pilots to the particular features of this technology.
The two-year study was carried out under contract to the military procurement office, which is the Bundeswehr's Federal Office for Equipment, Information Technology and Use (BAAINBw), in cooperation with IABG GmbH in Munich/Ottobrunn. For several years, IABG has been operating a man-in-the-loop simulator (MILSIM) to simulate realistic mission scenarios for German Air Force aircraft, such as the Eurofighter. The objective of the study was to compare, under realistic conditions, the new electronic beam scanning radar technology with the radar currently in use, which is based on mechanical antenna control. The results were intended to be used to demonstrate the technical und operational advantages of the e-scan radar with wide field of regard and to develop options for improvement of the future behaviour of the pilots during missions.
"Our e-scan software has demonstrated that target detection is much better and target tracking more stable with the new technology, which means that both mission success and safety of pilots can be enhanced," explains Elmar Compans, Head of the Sensors & Electronic Warfare unit at Cassidian.
In contrast to conventional radars, an e-scan radar onboard the Eurofighter can perform several tasks practically simultaneously. The term "e-scan" results from the fact that the radar beam is basically steered electronically. Unlike traditional radars with mechanical steering, the transmitting energy does not originate from a central transmitter, but is generated by more than 1,000 transmit/receive modules (TRM). Operating the largest European assembly line for such radar modules, Cassidian is the pioneer of this technology in Europe.
Source : Cassidian
Read more: http://www.asdnews.com/news-41659/New_radar_technology_brings_advantages_for_Eurofighter_missions.htm#ixzz1pvdW1Itk
Orders, not issues cause of fighter fleet delays
David Ellery
March 24, 2012
The logic underpinning Defence Minister Stephen Smith's claims that Australia's Joint Strike Fighter fleet could suffer from production delays is hard to follow, a senior Lockheed Martin executive has said.
A Lockheed Martin vice-president and the senior executive on the JSF program, Tom Burbage, said the introduction of the planes into Australian service was more likely to be held up by the postponement of orders than issues with building them.
Mr Smith has cited possible production delays as a reason for deferring orders for the remaining 12 planes in the first batch of 14. He has also indicated a decision on the next 58, originally scheduled to be made around September or October, is not a priority in 2012.
''Right now, this year, as you've seen, we are delivering production airplanes to the [US] air combat command and the marines,'' Mr Burbage said. ''The marines will actually go to full initial operating capability in late 2014, early 2015.''
The key issue for Australia was when its first planes would go into the ''training community'', the pool of JSFs at Eglin air force base that are being used to train the first pilots. RAAF personnel can't enter the program until Australia has chips in the game.
Under the current schedule, Australia's first training aircraft are due to be delivered in the US in 2017. If, as Mr Smith has suggested, the orders for those planes are deferred, then training may well be delayed. There is a window of opportunity which would allow for some delay, but it is quite tight.
''There is a planning issue that obviously depends on getting enough airplanes in the training situation to train enough pilots to have the capability when the airplanes arrive back here,'' Mr Burbage said.
Lockheed Martin is confident it can accommodate Australia's production needs.
''We've certainly got plenty of capacity to deliver airplanes,'' he said. ''I personally don't follow the logic completely on labelling anything a production delay. There may be an order delay for some reason or another but it's not because the airplanes can't be here.''
Mr Burbage, who noted work on the first of two Australian jets to be delivered in the US in 2014 had already begun, said while Australia was to eventually have its own integrated training centre for JSF pilots, the first group would be taught in the US.
''The ITC will start training pilots locally as soon as enough planes are in Australia,'' Lockheed Martin's Graham Bentley said.
Mr Burbage said there were two questions the Australian government needed to address.
''The first is, what is the order of buying this first tranche of 14 airplanes and what is the timing for that? The second question is at what point does the minister approve going to the next tranche of airplanes? Obviously there is some time associated with both of these decisions.''
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/orders-not-issues-cause-of-fighter-fleet-delays-20120323-1vpr5.html#ixzz1pwL3OsJC
Czech Air-to-Air practice with Gripen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YIDcxAcoa0
Sukhoi Promotes the Su-35 Fighter to the Latin American Market
16:38 GMT, March 23, 2012 Moscow | The Sukhoi Company will show off its multi-purpose Su-35 fighter of the 4++ generation at the upcoming on March 27 17th International Aerospace Exhibition FIDAE 2012 in Santiago, Chile.
A model airplane will be presented on the stand of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), which includes the Sukhoi holding company. Visitors to the exhibition and experts will be able to look at its performance characteristics, and the military — to discuss with Sukhoi's representatives possible aircraft deliveries to the armed forces in the region.
Sukhoi is currently negotiating with foreign customers seeking to re-equip their Air Force. It plans to export Su-35 aircraft to countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and South America. If new contracts are signed, Russia will be able to maintain its high competitiveness on the fighter jets world market until the 5th generation fighter aircraft enters the market in 2016-2025.
The serial production of the Su-35S is going on at the Sukhoi's Y.A.Gagarin Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KNAAPO) in accordance with the state contract signed in 2009 to deliver 48 aircraft to the Russian Ministry of Defence by the year 2015.
At present, the Joint State Tests (JST) of the airplane are going on. In March this year the fourth production Su-35S was delivered to the JST. The Su-35-1 and 2 carried out preliminary flight tests, during which the main established flight and technical characteristics of the on-board equipment and super maneuverability features were fully confirmed, stability and controllability characteristics, the characteristics of the power plant and the work of the navigation system were tested.
The plane reached the maximum ground-level speed of 1,400 km/h, speed at altitude — 2400 km/h, the ceiling — 18 thousand meters. The detection range of targets in the "air-to-air" mode is over 400 km. This is significantly higher than that of the combat aircraft currently in service. The onboard OLS (optical locator station) can detect and track multiple targets at ranges exceeding 80 km. More than 400 flights were made as part of flight testing on the fighters. The aircraft complex is ready to undergo tests for combat use.
The analysis of the amount of work already done allows a conclusion that Su-35/Su-35S has a much better flight characteristics compared to analogue aircraft in service. The airborne equipment of the plane allows solving a wider range of tasks set by tactical and technical requirements.
The potential characteristics incorporated in the aircraft will allow it to exceed all tactical fighters of the 4th and 4 + generations, such as "Rafale" and EF 2000, modernized fighters like the F-15, F-16, F-18, F-35 and to counter the F-22A fighter.
The UAC products are presented at the air show in Chile by military and civilian aircraft, manufactured by enterprises of the corporation. In addition to the Su-35 the UAC stand will also host the Yak-130, Sukhoi Superjet 100 and MC-21 aircraft models.
Company or Organisation Portrait:
Sukhoi Company (JSC) is Russia's major aircraft holding company, employing more than 27,000 people. Among the holding's members are leading Russian design bureaus and aircraft production plants. The Company supports a complete cycle of work in aircraft engineering: from frontend engineering to comprehensive aftersales support. The holding's products, such as Su- marque combat aircraft, are state-of-the-art weapons systems in the global market, which form the backbone of the frontline aviation of Russia and tactical air forces of many other countries. The Company is Russia's major manufacturer of export aircraft, placed 3rd in the world in terms of the numbers of modern fighters produced. The Company is currently implementing promising programmes in the field of military and civil aircraft engineering.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/33698/?SID=b3634b9e6873406dfc2670b32847d262
Delaying Fighter Deal Would 'Cost Billions'
Fri, Mar 23, 2012 16:20 CET
Defence Minister Stephen Smith's decision to hold back on the order for Australia's next batch of 58 Joint Strike Fighters could cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
The cost blow-out will be compounded if, as indicated, he pushes back the delivery schedule for 12 of the 14 planes in the first batch.
It is widely feared, both within Defence and industry, the two moves could create the air warfare capability gap the government says it is trying to avoid.
The claims come at the same time a senior JSF program executive has called on the Australian government to ''stay the course'' to keep the production line for the sophisticated fifth generation stealth fighter running at maximum efficiency.
Lockheed Martin vice president Tom Burbage told a parliamentary defence committee on Tuesday the postponement of plane orders by the US and other governments currently affected by the global financial crisis was ''the single largest contributor to the increases in the unit cost of the F-35''.
Civilian and uniformed staff in the Defence Materiel Organisation have been working on the detail of the 58-plane order for at least three years. It is due to go to Mr Smith in September or October. His office has declined to comment on whether the recommendation will go to government this year.
Mr Smith is already reviewing the timetable for the delivery of Australia's next 12 planes and has indicated the next 58 are not a priority in 2012.
Any significant deviation from the original procurement program is expected to commit Australia to the purchase of between 12 and 24 extra F/A-18 Super Hornets at a cost of between $3 billion and $6 billion.
http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6731&h=Delaying%20Fighter%20Deal%20Would%20'Cost%20Billions'
Fighters, Missiles For Countering Stealth
Mar 23, 2012
By Carlo Kopp, Bill Sweetman
Melbourne, Australia, Washington
Russia's technological strategy for post-2010 airpower, mapped out in considerable detail during the late 1990s, is reflected in emerging prototype and early production systems for both aircraft and air-defense weapons.
Unlike many nations that have followed ad hoc strategies for defining future weapon systems—often influenced by industrial base and existing force structure concerns—Russian defense planning has been systematic and disciplined in its approach, intended to symmetrically challenge U.S. strengths and asymmetrically challenge U.S. weaknesses. The strategic intent is to enhance Russia's political freedom of action in a U.S.-dominated post-Cold War world, while using arms export revenues to relieve the pressure on limited defense resources.
Russian choices have been guided by a consistent Western tactical air defense plan that has been centered on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Delays in the JSF program have now given Russia more than 20 years to prepare for its initial operational capability date.
For aircraft, Russian defense planners have chosen quality over numbers, with the future force being based on three 30-ton-plus fighter-strike aircraft from Sukhoi, two of them direct developments of the Su-27 "Flanker" family. The smaller MiG-29/35 has been developed and offered for export only.
The most mature of the three is the Su-34 strike fighter/medium bomber. The first batch of six production-standard Su-34s, out of an initial order of 32 aircraft, has been delivered to a tactics development unit at Lipetsk, and 10 more are due to arrive this year; an order for another 92 aircraft was announced on March 1, to be delivered by 2020. Under development since the late 1980s, the Su-34 replaces the Su-24 "Fencer" in land and maritime strike, suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses and other missions, while having the speed and agility to defend itself.
The third production-standard example of the Su-35S air superiority fighter started its flight tests on Jan. 17. At that point, according to Sukhoi, two Su-35 prototypes (one was lost in a runway overrun early on) had performed 400 flight tests, and formal state acceptance trials started in August 2011, along with the first production aircraft.
The Su-35S is a substantially refined development of the original "Flanker." Thrust vectoring is effective in yaw, pitch and roll, and fully integrated with the aerodynamic flight controls. This has permitted the elimination of the canard surfaces on the Su-30MKI and similar versions, which restricted maximum Mach to 1.8, along with a separate airbrake, saving weight and adding fuel capacity. As well as providing the fighter with exceptional maneuverability, the integrated flight and propulsion control is considered a safety benefit, making the fighter departure-resistant even in asymmetrical conditions.
The 117S engines increase available thrust by up to 16%, but new materials and refined structure keep weight close to that of the original aircraft. Radar cross-section (RCS) has been reduced, using 1990s technology developed by ITAE, and the new avionics suite includes a wide-field-of-regard radar, which combines a passive, electronically scanned array with a mechanical gimbal.
Taken together, the new features of the Su-35S point to an effort to reduce the effective range of any hostile anti-aircraft missile: lower RCS and better jamming to complicate tracking, better agility to stress the missile's kinematic performance, combined with a radar that can maintain situational awareness or guide a counter-attack through an evasive maneuver. It was the vulnerability of the U.S. Air Force's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile to such countermeasures that originally inspired development of the MBDA Meteor.
Photos and videos of flight testing have underlined the radical nature of the third Sukhoi type, the T-50, the third prototype of which—with provision for radar and other sensors—flew in late November, just after the program notched its 100th test flight. Building on the foundation of the earlier designs, with the broad inner "centroplane," vectored thrust and widely separated engines, the T-50 adds new control surfaces on the leading edge of the centroplane. These surfaces can operate differentially over a wide range of motion. The widely separated nozzles have their vectoring axis aimed outward and upward, about 30 deg. from the vertical, so that they can produce pitch, roll and yaw moments. The small vertical stabilizers are all-moving.
One question that has no official answer is whether the current T-50 represents the definitive configuration. Today's round nozzles and the curvature of the aft nacelles are not at first glance stealth-optimized, and the engine is not fully masked head-on by the inlet duct.
The Su-35S and T-50 programs are related insofar as some Su-35S features, such as the big-screen cockpit displays and integrated flight/propulsion control, will provide experience for the T-50 developers. The Saturn 117S engine used on the Su-35S is a precursor to the 117 used on the T-50.
The asymmetric dimension to future Russian air warfare programs entails the development of counter very-low-observable (CVLO) radar technologies and long-range, high-speed surface-to-air missile (SAM) designs, complemented by a new generation of short-range point defense weapons intended to destroy incoming guided weapons, especially anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles and guided bombs. All systems are built for high mobility, typically with 5-min. "shoot and scoot" times to permit "scooting" inside of the targeting and engagement cycles of most guided munitions.
The focus in Russian CVLO radar has been in the 1-meter VHF band. Stealth shaping in fighters is largely ineffective in VHF because components such as stabilizers and wingtips have dimensions close to the radar wavelength. Radar-absorbent treatments developed for S-band and above are ineffective in VHF due to both electrical behavior and thickness.
The flagship product is the NNIIRT/Almaz-Antey 55Zh6M Nebo M 3-D radar system, of which 100 were recently ordered to re-equip Russian air defense forces. The Nebo M is uniquely a "multi-band" design, comprising three radars and a central data fusion and command post module, all carried on separate high-mobility 8 x 8 24-ton vehicles.
The RLM-M VHF-band, RLM-D L-band and RLM-S C/X-band radars all feed tracking data to the command van's data fusion system—which resembles the U.S. Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability system—using high-speed narrow-beam digital data links in the microwave band. All radars appear to be solid-state active, electronically scanned array (AESA) designs. The intent of the Nebo M design is for the RLM-M to detect stealth targets, and cue the RLM-D and -S components to produce exact tracking data, bypassing the initial acquisition problems otherwise seen in mid/upper-band radars with VLO targets. Range performance has not been disclosed but the RLM-M is expected to better the earlier Nebo- SVU by at least 40%.
The earlier NNIIRT 1L119E Nebo-SVU VHF AESA does not appear to have been built in large numbers, and used a less mobile semi-trailer configuration. The Nebo-SVU was credited with space-time adaptive processing technology similar to that or the Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye, and in 2002 NNIIRT's Igor Krylov said "We can see the stealth [F-117A] as clearly as any other plane".
The push into CVLO radar is paralleled by investment in highly mobile long-range SAM designs with high speed and short flight times. The intent is twofold—to deny airspace to standoff and penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and electronic attack platforms, while permitting SAMs to close with stealth targets before they can retreat from tracking range.
Russia's future integrated air defense system will be constructed around the S-400 Triumf (SA-21 "Growler") strategic SAM, and the S-500 Triumfator M or SA-X-NN SAM and missile defense system. The S-400 is now deployed with air defense regiments at Dubrovka, Elektrostal and Vladivostok.
The S-400 is a direct evolution of the S-300PMU2 (SA‑20B "Gargoyle"), retaining the space feed X-band engagement radar, tubular launch containers and basic missile airframe. The digital multimode 92N6E Grave Stone uses Sparc digital processing, and directional microwave data links to missile transporter erector launchers (TELs) and acquisition radars, such as the heavily revised 91N6E battle management radar that is based on the 5N64/64N6E/E2 Big Bird series. New semi-trailer 5P85TE2 and 8 X 8 self-propelled 5P90S/SE TELs), based on the BAZ-6909, replace earlier designs.
The baseline 48N6E3/DM missile is an enhanced "Gargoyle" with a cited range of 250 km (155 mi.). It is soon to be supplemented by the yet-to-be-seen new 40N6 missile credited with a range of 400 km. Belarus will be the first export client.
In a parallel development, army air defense units are receiving the S-300V4 upgrade to the legacy "Sprint-like" S-300V (SA-12 "Giant"/"Gladiator") SAM/ABM, involving tracked TEL upgrades and the new 9M82M and 9M83M missiles developed for the Antey-2500 or SA-X-23, credited with 200-250 km and 120-130 km ranges, respectively. Russia has yet to disclose whether the 9S32 Grill Pan radars are to be replaced by the larger 9S32M Grill Screen in the S-300V4 program.
The upper tier of the future Russian SAM network is the S-500, currently in advanced development. Disclosures have been limited, but material released in mid-2010 suggests a missile derived from the 9M82M is likely, with a range of 500-600 km and ABM capability. The radar suite is to comprise the Big Bird-derived 91N6A(M) acquisition and battle management radar, the revised 96L6-TsP acquisition radar, and the new 76T6 multimode engagement and 77T6 ABM engagement radars.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p64-434177.xml&headline=Fighters,%20Missiles%20For%20Countering%20Stealth&next=10
Why the Pentagon's New Fighter Jet Will Now Cost More Than $1 Trillion
http://www.propublica.org/article/why-pentagons-new-fighter-jet-will-cost-more-than-1-trillion
Iemand geinteresseerd in een job zonder crisis salaris?
THE United Arab Emirates Air Force is shopping around for an Australian fighter pilot.
Advertisements for an "overseas instructor-pilot" with "fighter aircraft experience", including F15 and F18, have appeared in aviation media over the past fortnight.
The UAE Embassy in Canberra declined to reveal further details about the job.
A Department of Defence spokesperson said there was a steady level of interest in RAAF pilots from foreign militaries.
"The overall rate of RAAF pilots and aircrew accepting employment with foreign militaries is low and relatively stable over time and does not provide a significant concern for the Air Force," the spokesperson said.
Pilots' Association vice-president Richard Woodward said instructor-pilot positions with Gulf militaries generally paid over $200,000 a year.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/united-arab-emirates-air-force-eyes-australian-fighter-pilot/story-fn7x8me2-1226309125033
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/03/2012 | 09:30 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 23/03/2012 | 08:47 uur
dus als een Gripen € 1,5 miljoen per jaar kost en deelt door 175 vlieg-uren => € 8571,00 euro per vlieg-uur (dit vind ik er laag, want volgens mij kosten onze F-16 iets van rond de € 16.000,00 per vlieg-uur. (weet ik niet geheel zeker).
En niet te vergeten dat als wij kijken naar de kosten per vlieguur er eigenlijk alleen wordt gerekend vnuit de B/C variant, de E/F (NG) is een volledig andere kist. (al zal deze natuurlijk als één pitter altijd voordeliger zijn dan twee pitter)
Rond 2003, 2004 waren de directe exploitatiekosten per vlieguur van de F-16C USD 3.600. Volgens Saab EN de Zweedse luchtmacht bedroegen deze voor de Gripen A/B USD 2.500 en voor de Gripen C/D USD 2.000!
In 2010 bedroegen de directe gebruikskosten voor de F-16C USD 7.750 en voor de Gripen C/D USD 5.000. Voor de Gripen NG ging men in 2010 uit van USD 6.000.
Ik pleit hier altijd voor de Gripen NG als F-16 vervanger. Niet omdat deze de beste is, want dat is hij niet, de F-35A en Rafale zijn beter.
Maar met de Gripen NG hebben we een adequaat jachtbommenwerper, dat in voldoende aantallen kan worden aangeschaft en gebruikt.
En we voorkomen dat er het zelfde gebeurd als bij onze Apache vloot met zijn hoge exploitatie kosten, waarbij het Jaarlijks Oefen Programma wordt beperkt van 180 naar een in-adequate JOP van 140 uur.
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/03/2012 | 13:48 uur
Ik pleit hier altijd voor de Gripen NG als F-16 vervanger. Niet omdat deze de beste is, want dat is hij niet, de F-35A en Rafale zijn beter.
In kwantiteit versus kwaliteit ben ik het volledig met jouw eens.
Ik zou willen kiezen voor de "gulden middenweg" omdat het mijn overtuiging is dat de F35A een prima vliegtuig wordt maar, maar zoals het er nu naar uitziet onze luchtmacht volledig decimeert (al laat ik me graag positief verrassen)
De Gripen NG rond 2040 toe is aan een vervanger en mijns inzien onvoldoende is opgewassen tegen het aanstormende Russische en Aziatische potentiëel.
De Rafale biedt wat mij betreft een prima middenweg, zeker (zoals het nu lijkt) de productie voor vele jaren is gegarandeerd, de prijsontwikkeling een gunsige wending neemt en moderniseringsprogamma's wellicht betaalbaar blijven zodat deze kist mee kan tot 2050+
Dit laatste staat of valt natuurlijk wel met de definitieve keuze van India wat weer een positieve spin-off lijkt te hebben in Brazilië, de VAE, kuwait en op termijn in Libië.
Ik ben nu even in de war: de F-35A zou beter zijn dan de Gripen NG? Kan dat ding het dan eindelijk een dogfight winnen tegen een gemiddelde straaljager met ontwerpjaar 1970? Ik heb namelijk veelvuldig begrepen dat de F-35A geen fatsoenlijke bochten kan nemen, langzaam stijgt en daalt, langzaam is en een beperk bereik heeft. Hebben de vele miljarden over budget dan eindelijk wat vruchten afgeworpen?
Citaat van: dudge op 24/03/2012 | 17:49 uur
Citaat van: Lynxian op 24/03/2012 | 17:36 uur
Ik ben nu even in de war: de F-35A zou beter zijn dan de Gripen NG? Kan dat ding het dan eindelijk een dogfight winnen tegen een gemiddelde straaljager met ontwerpjaar 1970? Ik heb namelijk veelvuldig begrepen dat de F-35A geen fatsoenlijke bochten kan nemen, langzaam stijgt en daalt, langzaam is en een beperk bereik heeft. Hebben de vele miljarden over budget dan eindelijk wat vruchten afgeworpen?
Poleme schrijft over een jachtbommenwerper, je eisen daaraan vwb dogfights kunnen lager zijn dan bij een air dominantie fighter. En een bom op een doelwit gooien moet dat ding nog wel lukken.
Mwja, ik snap je punt. Alleen wanneer we het over een F-16 vervanger hebben dan verwacht ik een multirole vliegtuig, eentje die beiden kan. Want dat is wel degelijk van belang; hoe moeten we in de toekomst ons luchtruim gaan verdedigen met een (exclusief) jachtbommenwerper?
Citaat van: dudge op 24/03/2012 | 17:49 uur
Poleme schrijft over een jachtbommenwerper, je eisen daaraan vwb dogfights kunnen lager zijn dan bij een air dominantie fighter. En een bom op een doelwit gooien moet dat ding nog wel lukken.
Desondanks veel kritiek op de JSF kan ik me ook voorstellen dat het ergens na 2020 een prima mulirole kist wordt al vrees ik dat hij als air dominance geen partij zal zijn door de beperkingen van het ontwerp.
Willen "we" hier een air dominance kist van maken dan denk ik dat het basis design op de schop moet waardoor het een volledig andere kist wordt, een F35D (of zo iets) (los van budget beperkingen)
De basis gedachte (naast de vervanging van diverse types) was natuurlijk een budy optreden: F22 in combinatie met F35 zoals nu de F15 en de F16.
Nu is de F22 wel een superieure air dominace kist (als deze zijn weg uit de hangar weet te vinden) maar kent zijn grootste beperking door het enorm kleine aantal.
USAF fields first upgraded F-22 Raptors
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
02:55 23 Mar 2012
The US Air Force has begun to deploy Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors upgraded with enhanced air-to-ground strike capabilities to the operational fleet, starting with the 3rd Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska.
"The 525th Fighter Squadron was the first Combat Air Forces squadron to receive an [Increment] 3.1 modified aircraft," says squadron commander Lt Col Paul "Max" Moga. "The capabilities this incremental upgrade brings are a complete game-changer for the F-22, making it even more lethal and survivable in combat."
The unit's flagship, tail number 4115, is the first aircraft to be equipped with the modifications, which add a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) capability, electronic attack, better geo-location capabilities to find enemy radars, and the ability to carry eight 113kg (250lb) GBU-39 small diameter bombs (SDB).
The Increment 3.1 upgrade allows a pilot manually to designate two ground targets at a time using two weapons each, according to Lockheed, enabling an F-22 to hit four separate targets with its eight weapons. By contrast, the USAF's previous Increment 2 configuration enabled each aircraft to strike two fixed targets using its two 454kg Joint Direct Attack Munition satellite-corrected, inertially guided bombs.
"A four-ship of Increment 3.1 aircraft can successfully find, fix, track, target and engage targets in the most challenging of anti-access environments," Moga says. "Stealth and speed, combined with an advanced electronic attack capability, allow pilots to operate with impunity while achieving their mission objectives."
The Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar's SAR mode creates black and white photo-quality images of the Earth's surface, allowing pilots to pick their own targets, while the new electronic attack capability allows the F-22 to jam enemy radars using the sensor.
A future Increment 3.2 upgrade has been split into smaller packages called A, B and C. The first is scheduled for fielding in 2014, while the second would begin retrofits in 2017. The third has not yet been fully defined, but the USAF is trying to add open-architecture hardware and software.
Further elements of the future upgrade package include adding Raytheon's high off-boresight AIM-9X and AIM-120D Amraam missiles, and the ability to independently retarget up to eight SDBs against eight separate targets. The Raptor will also gain an automatic ground collision avoidance system and electronic protection to defend it from enemy jamming.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-fields-first-upgraded-f-22-raptors-369886/
Su-35 BM Technology and Weapons
Interessant (commercieel) filmpje.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuzCSJBjlv8&feature=player_embedded#!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/03/2012 | 19:20 uur
Su-35 BM Technology and Weapons
Zijn de SU35 en de PAK-FA/T-50 in 2020-25
alle westerse alternatieven (m.u.v. de F22) de baas?
Russian Ministry of Defence and Irkut Corporation Signed the Contract on Su-30SM Fighters Delivery
The latest Su-30SM two-seat fighters ordered for the Russian air force are fitted with vectoring nozzles, and can be used for training as well as combat.
Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and President of Irkut Corporation Alexey Fedorov, have signed the contract on Su-30SM multirole fighters delivery for the Russian Armed Forces.
Under the contract, Irkut Corporation will supply to the Defence Ministry 30 aircraft of this type by 2015.
Anatoly Serdyukov noted that upcoming entry of the modern two-seat super-manoeuverable aircraft into the Russian Armed Forces significantly increase the combat power of the Russian Air Force. Moreover, technical capabilities of the fighter allow achieving a higher level of pilot trainings, which is especially important due to the increase in procurement of new-generation combat aircraft.
Alexey Fedorov said that Irkut Corporation working closely with the Sukhoi company will do its best for timely implementation of the State contract for the supply of fighters. Well-regulated large-scale production of Su-30 fighters of various modifications provides high quality of aircraft manufactured by the Corporation, both for the Russian Air Force and for export.
Multirole Su-30SM fighter – designed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau continues the line of Su-30MKI combat aircraft family. These fighters, serially manufactured by the Irkutsk Aviation Plant – branch of JSC Irkut Corporation, successfully compete in the global market with modern aircraft of foreign manufacture.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/133781/russia-orders-30-su_30sm-two_seaters.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/03/2012 | 19:40 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/03/2012 | 19:20 uur
Su-35 BM Technology and Weapons
Zijn de SU35 en de PAK-FA/T-50 in 2020-25 alle westerse alternatieven (m.u.v. de F22) de baas?
Maakt niets uit, de luchtmacht 2-voeters maken het verschil.
In W.O. 1 verklaarde Manfred " the Red Baron" von Richthofen dat het hem helemaal niet uitmaakte in welk type jachtvliegtuig hij moest oorlog voeren. Verklaringen van gelijke strekking werden ook gedaan door Israelische vliegers in 1967, 1973 en 1982.
Volgens hen waren hun successen te danken aan een strenge selectie, hoogstaande opleidingen en veel en zo realistisch mogelijk oefenen.
Hoe goed is de logistieke organisatie; hoe goed zijn de strategie en TTP's; hoe hoog is het moreel; wat is de kwaliteit van het C4I systeem t.o.v. de (potentiele) tegenvoeter?
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/03/2012 | 23:43 uur
Maakt niets uit, de luchtmacht 2-voeters maken het verschil.
Ongetwijfeld.
Maar een F16, hoe goed de piloot ook is, gaat het afleggen tegen een F22 (tenzij het een wel heel beroerde F22 piloot is)
Voor het gemak ga ik er vanuit dat een SU35 of PAK-FA piloot gelijkwaardige 2 voeter capaciteiten heeft als die van een westerse luchtmacht.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/03/2012 | 23:49 uur
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/03/2012 | 23:43 uur
Maakt niets uit, de luchtmacht 2-voeters maken het verschil.
Ongetwijfeld. Maar een F-16, hoe goed de piloot ook is, gaat het afleggen tegen een F-22 (tenzij het een wel heel beroerde F22 piloot is)
Voor het gemak ga ik er vanuit dat een SU35 of PAK-FA piloot gelijkwaardige 2 voeter capaciteiten heeft als die van een westerse luchtmacht.
Die F-16 gaat het tegen een F-22A afleggen in een 1 op 1 situatie. Maar ... in principe gaat men in een oorlog nooit alleen op pad.
Er zijn maximaal ca. 110 inzetbare F-22A's tegen een veelvoud aan inzetbare F-16's. Aantallen zijn ook een kwaliteit!
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/03/2012 | 19:40 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/03/2012 | 19:20 uur
Su-35 BM Technology and Weapons
Zijn de SU35 en de PAK-FA/T-50 in 2020-25 alle westerse alternatieven (m.u.v. de F22) de baas?
Jurrien ik denk dat de EF, de Rafale en Gripen NG een kans maken als deze worden voorzien van een AESA radar en de de nieuwste versie van IRIS-T missile en de MBDA Meteor. De IRIS-T missile is een betere missile dan de Amerikaanse AIM-9 Sidewinder en de MBDA Meteor heeft een groter bereik dan de Amerikaanse AMRAAM, de Meteor heeft een bereik van 100 km en de AMRAAM maar een bereik van 40km
http://www.diehl.com/de/diehl-defence/produkte/lenkflugkoerper/iris-t-familie/iris-t.html
http://www.diehl.com/de/diehl-defence/produkte/lenkflugkoerper/iris-t-familie/iris-t-sl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T
http://www.mbda-systems.com/products/air-dominance/meteor/26/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor
Overigens denk ik als de F15SE nieuwe motoren krijgt dat deze het ook nog wel redt tegen de SU35 en de PAK-FA/T-50, ik zit dan aan de F22 motoren te denken of de F136 motor.
Citaat van: Lynxian op 24/03/2012 | 17:51 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 24/03/2012 | 17:49 uur
Citaat van: Lynxian op 24/03/2012 | 17:36 uur
Ik ben nu even in de war: de F-35A zou beter zijn dan de Gripen NG? Kan dat ding het dan eindelijk een dogfight winnen tegen een gemiddelde straaljager met ontwerpjaar 1970? Ik heb namelijk veelvuldig begrepen dat de F-35A geen fatsoenlijke bochten kan nemen, langzaam stijgt en daalt, langzaam is en een beperk bereik heeft. Hebben de vele miljarden over budget dan eindelijk wat vruchten afgeworpen?
Poleme schrijft over een jachtbommenwerper, je eisen daaraan vwb dogfights kunnen lager zijn dan bij een air dominantie fighter. En een bom op een doelwit gooien moet dat ding nog wel lukken.
Mwja, ik snap je punt. Alleen wanneer we het over een F-16 vervanger hebben dan verwacht ik een multirole vliegtuig, eentje die beiden kan. Want dat is wel degelijk van belang; hoe moeten we in de toekomst ons luchtruim gaan verdedigen met een (exclusief) jachtbommenwerper?
Over de Gripen NG kunnen we nog geen uitspraken doen qua prestaties. Betreffende de swing-role Gripen A t/m D wel, Noorse vliegers hebben ondervonden dat deze vergelijkbare prestaties heeft vergeleken met de F-16A block 15. De omni-role Rafale is volgens o.a. een KLu vlieger niet zo heel veel wendbaarder dan een F-16A block 15. De F-35A is qua vliegeigenschappen vergelijkbaar met de F-18C Hornet.
De prijs voor een multi-functioneel = compromis jachtvliegtuig betaal je met het inboeten van zowel lucht-lucht als lucht-grond prestaties en vaardigheden.
Citaat van: Poleme op 24/03/2012 | 23:58 uur
Die F-16 gaat het tegen een F-22A afleggen in een 1 op 1 situatie. Maar ... in principe gaat men in een oorlog nooit alleen op pad.
Er zijn maximaal ca. 110 inzetbare F-22A's tegen een veelvoud aan inzetbare F-16's. Aantallen zijn ook een kwaliteit!
Het aantal is zeker een kwaliteit en in dat kader heb je gelijk, 10 F16's of 10 Gripen's versus 1 F22 gaan natuurlijk met de winst aan de haal.
Mijn punt is niet zo zeer alleen de kwaliteiten van de SU35 en PAK-FA maar ook de kwantiteit.
De huidige bezuinigingswoede in het westen maakt ons zeer kwetsbaar.
Het Nederlandse voorbeeld: (ongeacht het type wat de F16 gaat opvolgen): Het aantal wat nu op de rol staat is maximaal 68, het zal mij niet verbazen als dit uiteindelijk maximaal 50/54 zullen zijn. (wellicht minder)
En helaas beperkt deze bezuinigingshype zich niet alleen tot Nederland, dus we hebben terecht een reden tot zorg.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/03/2012 | 00:08 uur
Overigens denk ik als de F15SE nieuwe motoren krijgt dat deze het ook nog wel redt tegen de SU35 en de PAK-FA/T-50, ik zit dan aan de F22 motoren te denken of de F136 motor.
Ik zie de F15(SE) als het alternatief, zeker i.c.m. nieuwe motoren, maar telkens als ik dit alternatief aandraag (in mijn ogen het best betaalbare en zeer bruikbaar voor de Klu) wordt deze optie zelfs op dit forum als niet realistisch afgedaan, waarbij dit toch echt een betaalbaar en beter alternatief is dan alle Europese en Amerikaanse concurrenten bij elkaar. (uitzondering de F22 welke helaas geen optie is)
Iedereen blijft maar praten over de Gripen.... leuke kist, zeker als we er 85 van kopen! (maar helaas vrienden... de politiek heeft besloten dat 68 het max is).
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/03/2012 | 00:08 uur
Jurrien ik denk dat de EF, de Rafale en Gripen NG een kans maken als deze worden voorzien van een AESA radar en de de nieuwste versie van IRIS-T missile en de MBDA Meteor
Je verwoord het goed: "een kans maken"
In mijn ogen is een kans maken niet goed genoeg, ik zie graag gelijkwaardigheid of beter.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2012 | 00:30 uur
Je verwoord het goed: "een kans maken"
In mijn ogen is een kans make niet goed genoeg, ik zie graag gelijkwaardigheid of beter.
Jurrien als ik goed heb opgelet was een van de analyses van Dr. Carlo Kopp dat het bereik van de AMRAAM te kort is ter vergelijking met zijn Russische tegenhanger en ik denk dat de MBDA Meteor met een bereik van 100 km dat niet heeft.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ausairpower.net%2FSu-30MK-BVR-2.jpg&hash=68e6f940a192e174fbb76ded5cb3e7ede11f1f1b)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/03/2012 | 00:59 uur
Jurrien als ik goed heb opgelet was een van de analyses van Dr. Carlo Kopp dat het bereik van de AMRAAM te kort is ter vergelijking met zijn Russische tegenhanger en ik denk dat de MBDA Meteor met een bereik van 100 km dat niet heeft.
Een probleem (van Russische zijde) welke binnen een aantal jaar wellicht wordt opgelost, zo werkt een competitie nu eenmaal (een fighter daarintegen heeft tien tot twintig jaar ontwikkelingstijd nodig)
Normaal gesproken is het "stuivertje wisselen" maar nu vrees ik dat we het "voordeel" voorlopig kwijt zijn, dit mede door het export verbod van Amerikaanse zijde op de F22 en het stoppen van de productie van deze kist. (wellicht een strategische blunder)
Hopenlijk dat de ontwikkeling door Boeing en LM van een 6e generatie kist rond 2030 de balans laat omslaan, want van Europese zijden hoeven we voor die tijd geen enkele actie te verwachten... hooguit een geavanceerde UCAV.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2012 | 01:22 uur
Normaal gesproken is het "stuivertje wisselen" maar nu vrees ik dat we het "voordeel" voorlopig kwijt zijn, dit mede door het export verbod van Amerikaanse zijde op de F22 en het stoppen van de productie van deze kist. (wellicht een strategische blunder)
Jurrien dat ben ik niet met je eens op het gebied van vliegtuigmotoren is het westen de meerderen van Rusland, daar is men de mindere mee.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/03/2012 | 01:32 uur
Jurrien dat ben ik niet met je eens op het gebied van vliegtuigmotoren is het westen de meerderen van Rusland, daar is men de mindere mee.
Hier heb ik onvoldoende inzicht in, maar als ik de prestaties zie van de nieuwe generatie Russische kisten in wendbaarheid en snelheid dan doen ze toch blijkbaar iets goeds.
Vrijwel alle huidige westerse kisten leggen het momenteel af (volgens de publieke informatie) tegen een SU35 in performance (m.u.v. de F22 en wellicht de F15 familie of de EF in een dog-fight scenario)
Japan's pre-research, the sixth-generation fighter will be equipped with laser weapons
Date:2012-03-19
2010, the ministry of defense research ideas of the future fighter, started to take over the future of the F2 fighter fighter envisaged. Since then, the defense ministry launched the idea of ??"i3″ fighter, in order to refine the specific concepts and new technologies. Defence Technology Forum 2011, the defense ministry has also demonstrated anti-stealth technology, and related materials and equipment of the next-generation fighter. Here, we come to understand overview of the sixth-generation stealth fighter known as the "i3″ envisaged.
"i3″ fighter technology can be used in the successor model of the F2 and F-15 fighter. The so-called "i3″ refers to information, intelligence and agility. Their ideas to a specific technology involves the following seven areas:
cloud shooting and advanced cockpit technology
this idea is similar to the "cloud computing", the use of advanced data link system will be one's own fleet to form a "cloud", by way of sharing information, as a group to launch the most efficient attack.
For example, combat aircraft fleet to meet the enemy, if A failed to find the near enemy machine B, the latter can pass each other the situation to the A machine, and ground-based radar and marine vessels from import the data into the system. This allows the fighter attack range to produce a leap in the expansion, and increase the chance of pre-emptive, to reduce ammunition consumption.
2, advanced fire control system, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles "group control"
"i3″ fighter also requires concerted action with other combat aircraft, such as combat in front of the task of autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles, equipped with anti-stealth capabilities of a large radar early warning aircraft, fighter equipped with high-power chemical lasers. They are linked by multiple high-speed data link encryption. In this way, the fighter, if not equipped with a large radar, you can also access to information through unmanned aerial vehicles and early warning aircraft and attack the enemy, thereby reducing the risk of a fighter. If the UAV has its own group of control and self-judgment, can also greatly reduce the burden of fighter pilots.
3, directed energy weapons (laser, strong microwave weapons)
air-to-air missiles of today's air combat weapons, but its development has reached the limit, on the one hand, it is difficult speed of Mach 10 in atmosphere, on the one hand, its shape is not conducive to the fighter invisible, while carrying a bomb bay in the fuselage in turn limit the number of fighters carrying missiles.
Therefore, the ministry of defense technology research headquarters boldly proposed laser weapons and other directed energy weapons practical programs. Moreover, the laser is as self-defense weapons programs has been some progress.
light to manipulate the system
fourth-generation fighter fly-by-wire system manipulation instructions can be converted into electrical signals, control the aircraft through the cable. The Research Division has been successful use in the P-1 patrol aircraft, a light control system, will be used for the "i3″ concept. Light control system instead of the optical fiber cable in the previous fly-by-wire system. Thus eliminating the possibility of manipulation of the signal by the electromagnetic interference, and greatly reduced the weight of the control system. Therefore, the light control system completely free from electromagnetic pulse attack, which significantly increased the resistance of the sixth-generation fighter on electromagnetic pulse weapons. If the "i3″ carrying and use of electromagnetic pulse bomb. Will the loss of other aircraft and missile combat capability. For future fighters, light control system can be described as is the ability to determine the technology of the life and death.
above the enemy above the stealth performance
in the development of stealth technology, you can use the Japanese have developed civilian technology and advanced materials. For example, transparent electromagnetic thin film materials used to manufacture LCD TV is transparent to visible light, but with the characteristics of electromagnetic waves can be interdictions, and therefore can be used to manufacture stealth fighter canopy.
in this regard. The defense ministry attached great importance to the development of metamaterials, "nature does not exist". In the past, the stealth aircraft rely mainly on the unique contour design, radar scattering in all directions, and the coating can absorb electromagnetic materials to reduce radar reflection surface. "Metamaterials" natural "flow through" material spread to the other direction so that radar waves through the material in a special metal or conductor arrangement, Therefore, in the shape of the design of metamaterials fighter, do not need to give more consideration to stealth capability, while fully taking into account the needs of mobility and other aspects.
6, the sixth-generation fighter of the next-generation high-power radar
opponent is also a stealth fighter, it must have high-power radar to strengthen the Discovery of each other's abilities. Research Division is currently on the radar of the GaN power amplifier, this material can be significantly reduced in the same power so that the volume of the radar antenna.
Another objective in this regard, the 64 sensor on the F22 and F-35 on 21 sensor integration for 8;
7, lightweight high-power engine
break the difficulties, Japan will give full play to their own good ceramics, carbon and composite materials technology, efforts to develop a lightweight high-power engine. Among them, the need to improve the high temperature high pressure capability of the engine fan and the core components, and use of ceramics and other materials to reduce weight.
the highest level of war is "without a fight to the enemy's military. Although the "i3″ program itself may ultimately only stay in the program, but independent research and development of new technologies of the next-generation fighter, the surrounding countries to form an effective deterrent.
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/74887
Boeing Reveals Future Concepts
Boeing announced two new concepts at the AFA convention this week.
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/sixth+generation+fighter
Chen: The Japanese developed the 6th generation fighter intended to lead the world of military technology
Date:2012-03-23
data for: Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries jointly developed with the Self-Defense Forces mind the concept of machine model.
Chen Hu,
Xinhua Zhuangao: In today's world, the various Air Force has developed four generations of machines, the Five Dynasties machine competition pushed a very intense state, in this Japan has suddenly announced to the development of six generations of machine, but also put forward a so-called "six-generation machine standard". Recently, the "military research" magazine published in Japan in March, an article titled "ministry of defense technology Part pre-sixth-generation fighter technology, the information disclosed in the paper, worthy of great concern.
in accordance with the fighter program on behalf of the standard argument, we forget to Japan's pre-research, six generations of fighters known as the "Japanese standard six-generation machine. Japan is now public information, what is its real intention?
Japanese standard six-generation machine, "what kind?
in accordance with the article published by the "military", the Japanese launch of the so-called six generations of machine standard is expressed as the "i3″, refers to the information, intelligence, and agility. As for the specific basis of technology, this article lists seven:
first cloud shooting and advanced cockpit technology;
second, advanced fire control system UAV swarm control ";
third, directed energy weapons (laser, strong microwave weapons);
Fourth, light operating system;
fifth, above the stealth capability on top of the enemy;
the sixth, next-generation high-power radar;
the seventh high-power, lightweight engine .
so-called "cloud shooting, similar to" cloud computing "is one of the fighter group in a sharing of information to go into battle as a whole. The so-called "crowd control" refers to six generations of the machine on the one hand to receive the upper large-scale early warning platforms (including the information issued by the AWACS early warning radar, shipborne radar information platform), on the other hand under the control of UAV operations . These two concepts, we should say is a new concept, the first two were the "i3″ standard "i", namely, information and intelligent. It can be said that this is the concept of core technology of the Japanese standard six-generation machine. Several technologies, such as lightweight high-power engine, is from three generations of machines, the four generations of machines, and even to the contents of the Five Dynasties machine has been extensively studied.
In addition, these basic technologies is relatively new to the Japanese side proposed a six-generation machine will be equipped with similar strong laser, strong microwave weapons directed energy weapons. From its flight control system, manipulated by the traditional telex, development to the FBL. At the same time, continue to maintain a four-generation machine, the Five Dynasties and the stealth capability of the machine. The only difference is that the Japanese to develop metamaterials that does not exist in nature in order to achieve its fighter stealth.
"i3″ standard
to thoroughly understand, we can roughly sketch out the basic outline of the Japanese standard six-generation machine ". Popular way to describe the six-generation machine in Japan is not a mere fighter model, but a system. Its core is a model sixth-generation fighter, with its common combat unmanned aerial vehicles, coupled with greater access to information platform, making the concept of a system.
the same time, the Japanese standard six-generation machine, "continues the stealth technology, high mobility, high power radar, and other properties of the current American Standard Five machines, to be supplemented by directed energy weapons, light control technology. From these perspectives, see the Japanese standard, the so-called "six-generation machine" is to use the information technology, information transfer, information processing means, a group fighting aviation combat system. It and the previous-generation fighter the biggest difference is that more consideration is a "gang war" approach to fighting.
six generations of the Japanese standard machine fly it?
this before, whether it is three generations or four generations of machines, and, later, derived from the Five Dynasties and machine generations of international standards are proposed by the United States and eventually established. USA Today is still to improve and develop the Five Dynasties and machine technology, and Japan at this time, first proposed six-generation machine standards. Japan's technology base and research and development experience, first proposed the standard six-generation machine, there seems to not fly to the feeling. Rely on what not fly, mainly depends on two issues: first, the desirability of technical means and the second is the likelihood of plans to accomplish.
now in Japan for the six-generation machine, "i3″ standard, largely in order to cater to the unmanned aerial vehicles and related technology development trend. However, this trend which a compromise solution: it does not use the unmanned combat aircraft operations independently, instead of using a manned fighter control UCAV group operations. From the technical means, which is a stage in the development of unmanned combat aircraft. , It is more focused on in this way which is neither a simple UAV how the performance, nor was the fighter's performance, but to consider it as a system to co-ordinate. Use in information acquisition, information processing, information transmission is a relatively strong technological advantages, proposed the concept of such a fighter. Therefore, the Japanese standard six-generation machine "does have its merits, and can not easily deny the rationality of the means of this technology.
As for the Japanese standard six-generation machine "involved in a series of technology in the end can not be achieved, which mainly depends on the relevant aspects of the technical reserves and financial input into. High-power engine is a more realistic, not so nothingness. The next generation of high-power radar, we should say fly. Replaced by-light operation while operating from the telex, the only way to transfer just not the same: one is the use of cable, a fiber, in essence, not much technical difficulty. Relative science fiction, is the use of metamaterials to achieve so-called stealth performance, as well as airborne directed energy weapons, but these two aspects are also some preliminary technical basis. The core of the cloud shot "and" crowd control ", happen to be the technical strengths. Japanese standard, the so-called "six-generation machine," the standard setting, and gives full consideration to Japan's technical superiority. From this perspective, Japan seems to be not only the concept of a fantasy, but also want some of its contents or even the whole content into a real platform that can be used in combat. Therefore, it is to achieve at least the possibility of a partial and should not be a comprehensive negative. From this perspective, the so-called "standard six-generation machine" is also very tricky ingredients.
Japan is trying to lead the world of military technology
we know, the technical means of the Five Dynasties machine is very difficult, in research and development, technical superiority and cost may There are a lot of problems. Especially for Japan, the future can not get from the United States it is hoped the advanced Five fighters, the Japanese heart is drumming. Has been Japan's most wanted to get to the U.S. F-22 fighter, it now appears that this possibility has been basically zero. The United States is doing all they can to sell the F-35 fighter jets to Japan, but the F-35 is not Japan's mind, this type of fighter are still many problems. Mentioned in this article of the "military", developed in Japan for six generations of machine is mainly used to the replacement of the F-2 and F-15 fighter, did not mention which will equip the next fighter. This means that, across the Five Dynasties machine era in Japan, direct use of the intent of the six generations of machines.
In addition, from the standards of the Japanese standard six-generation machine can be found, it is not simply an independent combat platforms, but from an overall air combat systems point of view to consider. This line of thought, is clearly more open than a single model of a new generation of fighter aircraft. As for the Japanese "Japanese standard six-generation machine can become the internationally accepted standards, which means that the future is actually six-generation machine can form, it is necessary to look at Japan can not put things on paper into reality. Should also pay attention to aviation standard of Japan's six-generation machine to take what kind of attitude.
a large weapons and equipment, there will be a program on behalf of internationally accepted standards, who established the accepted standards, it means that who in the state of technology leader in the field. To the military aviation field of view from three generations of machines, the internationally accepted standards are basically Americans established. Japan is now the standard in the future may turn it into an international standard, which exposed that Japan hopes to lead the world in military technology ambitions.
In fact, Japan's performance in this respect is not just the Japanese standard six-generation machine, "In earlier times, there is a 10 tanks. Main battle tanks worldwide, basically stay in the three generations of standards, this standard was originally to establish the German Leopard II tanks. , Only a Japanese maverick launched a so-called "fourth-generation main battle tanks, 10 tanks.
Japan in the past raised the standard of the new generation of main battle tanks, and now, the sixth-generation fighter "standard, can be said to be similar. This fully shows the Japanese are trying to lead the intent of the development of military technology. Combined after the Japanese to relax in the military, foreign trade, legal constraints, from which we can see the fuzzy, Japan is its outline of a larger blueprint for the future: it seeks to achieve, not just Japan-US military alliance a partner, or do a second-rate country, but hope to have more room for development. On this basis, Japan is the first to introduce the so-called "six generations of the Japanese standard machine" standards should be said that it was the logical thing.
is worth noting that, once the six-generation machine standard is technically a reality, even if only part of a reality, will be a huge breakthrough in fighter technology. By then, the Japanese standard six-generation machine will truly become the pioneers in the field of international fighter, and even the United States are very likely to six generations machine jointly developed with Japan. Even the so-called "Japanese standard six-generation machine, and ultimately did not form a specific aircraft or air combat system, but it related to various technologies can be integrated into existing aircraft. This enhancement of Japan's future military aviation technology, and even the future of the world's military aviation market, are not inconsiderable.
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/75149
Boeing and the skipped generation.
The early 90's were a great time of prosperity for McDonnell Douglas. The F-15 and F/A-18 line's were running at full force. The F-15E Strike Eagle was coming off the production line in respectable numbers, and Hornets were stinging away. They had just landed the T-45 trainer contract, and the Harrier was doing just dandy. The executives at McDonnell knew more than ever though, that in order to keep this prosperity of production going they would have to continue to stay ahead of the game and prepare for the future.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ll7fue49i61qhagdx.jpg&hash=91438f6c04c430a54aa88feceaad200ebe29a049)
The idea of an upgraded Hornet came into play during the late 80's. A number of features could make this light-weight multi-role Naval fighter sink into bigger role's world-wide by creating some adjustments on the airframe. But the main focus was of course the upcoming JSF contract, predicted to be one of the world's largest military contracts, the stakes were at an all time high for modern times. With the first flight of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, came the beginning of the end to McDonnell Douglas. Only a short time later, Boeing would acquire the entire company, in a much publicised take-over. The fate of the future fast jet operations was now in the hands of the newly created Boeing Military Aircraft division.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ll7fxeFP9X1qhagdx.jpg&hash=bc830c4afcb928294d75b60927d15da2a5f8696b)
The X-32 made it's first flight on September 18th, 2000. Thirteen months later, the D.O.D. announced that Lockheed Martin had won the JSF contract. This was a dark day for both Boeing and St. Louis. The F/A-18 Super Hornet was healthy for now, but the F-15 and Harrier line's were coming to a close. Not everyone could be moved to Super and Hawk production. Along with a new production plant/flight line came the merging of Boeing's military divisions to form Boeing I.D.S. (Now Defense, Space, and Security). Of course, Layoff's were inevitable.
Initial morale was more neutral than today's standards. Many had the mind set that lay-off's were a part of life, and that Lockheed's design would be able to fair smoothly on schedule, becoming a cheap and incomparable 5th generation fighter. No one thought the economy would bust either. It was time for Boeing to act fast. After receiving a bone from the USAF for ten additional F-15E Strike Eagle's to be produced between 2002-2004 they were able to capture a major order from South Korea, and eventually Singapore. These contracts are what make the F-15 line produce 12-14 airframes a year (with the exception of a production break in 2001). The F/A-18 Super Hornet was continued to be granted moderate orders to keep the line in full health. Of course all Harrier operations in STL ended in 2003, and the last hawk was delivered in 2009.
Fast forward some years. The F-35 Lightning II's numerous delays and controversies has acted as a silver lining for Boeing. More F/A-18's have been needed to fill the gap for the USN until the F-35C model becomes operational. Australia has bought a squadron of the birds, and interest lies big in country's such as Greece and the UAE.
But the F/A-18 and F-15 have there design roots back to the 1970's. At a time were 5th generation stealth, super cruise, and internal bays become the basic ideas, Boeing is still marketing these 4.5 generation fighters.
So What?
The F/A-18 and the F-15 today are sufficient enough to provide defense for numerous reasons. Continual upgrades to the aircraft have kept it up to date with modern elements. The entire idea of a "5th Gen. Fighter" is gone. The F-22 line is unfortunately about to close, and the F-35 continues to slide farther down the line of imagination versus reality.
When one thinks about it, the fact that Boeing is still in the fast jet business is simply amazing. No one ever thought the F-15 and F-18 line's could suffice another decade past 2000, and now they are planning on pushing it until the 2020's. New ideas such as the Block III F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15 Silent Eagle incorporate internal weapon bay's, Conformal gas tanks, next generation engines, and even RCS reduction on the frontal aspect's. A number of countries are interested in procuring these airframes, and why not? They can't get the F-22, and the F-35/comparable foreign nation aircraft won't be available until the end of the decade. There simply is no other option.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ll7g10bYtm1qhagdx.png&hash=cd217025d864cb5c62541aca6fbab63d4db4c7f7)
Boeing has always been critissed for it's design on the X-32. On the opposite spectrum, many still question whether or not Lockheed was the right choice for the contract. In coming years the story could be a drastic change. Boeing could end up winning numerous contracts for it's (excuse me while I say) 4.7 generation aircraft, while the idea of a total 5th gen. force becomes nothing more than that, an idea.
We are getting proof that it is possible for McBoeing to skip an entire generation of military aircraft, yet still keep a respectable manufacturing force of military machines that make it the third largest military retailer in the world. Of course as this decade comes to a close... a new battle of sixth generation contracts will begin.
One thing is for sure, the engineers of the 1970's sure got it right didn't they?
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ll7g1gW3KZ1qhagdx.png&hash=7c2d4bf104aa495c0a2148cdb53c67c86d3acc4f)
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/sixth+generation+fighter
Why the F/A-18 program won't end in 2015
For some reason, recent reports have been jumping up and gripping the fact that the recent F/A-18 Super Hornet contract (MYP III) is the final leg of production. Signed in 2010, the contract initially called for 124 new airframes to be delivered through early 2015. However, just a few months ago another 15 airframes were ordered, adding an additional four months of production and a new total to 139 total airframes. The contract comes with the option to order up to 194 total airframes, which would automatically extend production to the end of 2016 if fully exercised
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m15frylg651qhagdx.jpg&hash=64dd2749561b6548fec173836a52c07fd4fc63a6)
A lot of people like to throw the word "stop-gap" and "intern" into the same sentence with the F/A-18. Yes, back when the program was started in the early 90's (although planning had begun nearly a decade before) that was the idea. McDonnell Douglas had went through the whole A-12 deal, and the Navy was in desperate need of some new fighters. So the Super Hornet became the go to aircraft. Between the years 1996-2011, over 500 airframes were built in St. Louis (counting 24 for the RAAF and testers). The original plan was for the F-35C to take over the dominant role in the USN, with first delivery's set before the end of 2010. At only 65-70 million a pop, buying the F-35 seemed like the better deal than spending 55 million on a 4.5 generation fighter. Why settle for some when you can have it all?
Then the delays struck. To summarize five years of countless back and fourth rubbish, the F-35C will not be combat ready on the carrier until 2020 at the earliest, some say at all. There is no doubt problems such as this will be solved in the near future, and the F-35 may very well become a successful fighter program throughout the next decade. However, we are in 2012. You still have ten plus years of a major capability gap that needs to be closed. Even if all 194 airframes are bought through 2016, the USN will still need more. A lot more. There is no other option over the next ten years, and that could
potentially be longer if delays and cost of the JSF keep rising. The average price for an F/A-18 Super Hornet today is somewhere in the 52-55 million ballpark. Add another 7 million to the proposed Block III variant, and 22 million for an EA-18G Growler configuration. Comparing that to a (current) cost of 200+ million for the F-35, and your options suddenly change.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m15fveWA7k1qhagdx.jpg&hash=3664357d8eea887eb6c72865891a9ddeac399240)
Lets say the F-35C does get back on track in a rather fast manner, the USN will still need to phase out the rest of it's Grumman 'Iron Works' era Prowler force. At the very least another set of Growlers will be needed past MYP III.
Then there's the strong possibility of international orders. Australia is said to be getting close to another order of 18+ airframes, and although that does not buy production time (They would be delivered by mid 2016 as well), it does buy stake. If Brazil were to choose the F/A-18 this year for its fighter, the thirty six airframes could keep production going into 2017.
Going with the worst case scenario for the F-35, the United Kingdom and Canada could end up buying Super Hornet's as well. If that were to happen, production would easily last until the end of this decade, if not into the next.
This is all speculation, the only thing for certain is that the Super Hornet is backlogged into mid 2015. However, for so many reports to be judging this as the "final order" not only shows ignorance, but that the media is becoming more naive by the day. The initial purpose was for an "intern" fighter, but twenty years later the Super Hornet has become the front-line fighter for the USN, and it's not going to be changing anytime soon.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m15fwlBRF21qhagdx.png&hash=f4c546085172da85aba5abb2f864b2f5c8f4d0d8)
http://boeingspotter.tumblr.com/post/19586580714/why-the-f-a-18-program-wont-end-in-2015
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2012 | 01:44 uur
Hier heb ik onvoldoende inzicht in, maar als ik de prestaties zie van de nieuwe generatie Russische kisten in wendbaarheid en snelheid dan doen ze toch blijkbaar iets goeds.
Vrijwel alle huidige westerse kisten leggen het momenteel af (volgens de publieke informatie) tegen een SU35 in performance (m.u.v. de F22 en wellicht de F15 familie of de EF in een dog-fight scenario)
Jurrien de lessen uit het verleden leert ons dat een eenmotorige kist vaak een betere wendbaarheid heeft dan een tweemotorige kist, dat was ook de reden dat de A4 Skyhawk een succes was en de F16 nog steeds een succes is, daarom denk ik dat de Gripen NG ook een kist is met een goede wendbaarheid is de Jas 39 is dat in ieder geval al.
Lockheed welcomes Norway backing of F-35 fighter
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:35pm GMT
(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) on Friday welcomed news that Norway planned to increase its order for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets by four planes, and was considering pulling forward the delivery of two initial training jets by one year to 2015.
Lockheed said the move showed the Norwegian government's "trust and confidence" in the F-35 program, and pledged to work closely with the Norwegian government to accommodate and implement its revamped plans.
Lockheed is developing three variants of the radar-evading new fighter for the U.S. military and the eight partner countries that are helping fund its development: Britain, Norway, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, Australia and the Netherlands.
The U.S. Defense Department in February announced plans to postponed orders for 179 F-35 jets to save $15.1 billion over the next five years and allow more time for testing before production ramps up on the $382 billion program.
The U.S. move, part of a Pentagon drive to cut spending by $487 billion over the next decade, and budget pressure overseas have prompted some countries to rethink their own orders. Italy, for instance, cut its order by 41 planes to 90.
Norway's defense budget remains among the highest per capita in Europe, and on Friday, it released a white paper that called for a 7 percent increase in defense spending from 2013 to 2016, part of "a temporary strengthening ... dedicated to the purchase of Norway's new fleet of F-35 combat aircraft."
The paper said Norway aimed to buy 52 F-35 fighter jets, including four training planes, from 2015 through 2023 or 2024, a plan that would see initial funding flow to Lockheed in 2013.
The previous plan called for Norway to buy 48 planes from 2016 through 2020, according to a document prepared for the F-35 program office, with initial funding to begin in 2014.
Norway said stretching the orders over a longer period would give it greater flexibility and help spread out the cost more evenly. It said it was not revising its estimate for procurement cost of the planes, despite changes in orders by the United States and other countries that could drive the price higher.
The Norwegian statement noted that the country's parliament would be involved in each yearly acquisition of aircraft, and said the final six orders for production planes would be confirmed at a later stage.
The Pentagon's F-35 program office also welcomed the news from Norway and said it would continue to work closely with Norway's military on development of the F-35.
(Reporting By Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Bob Burgdorfer)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-lockheed-fighter-norway-idUKBRE82M1CQ20120323
New delay over fighter jet choice
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent.
9:00AM BST 25 Mar 2012
A decision on the choice of the Royal Navy's new combat jet has been delayed yet again following disagreements between senior officers and defence ministers.
The Government is poised to perform an about-turn on its choice of plane to fly from two new aircraft carriers that will enter service in 2020.
Senior officers have advised the Prime Minister to axe plans to buy the Joint Strike Fighter F-35C after the cost of converting the carriers to use them rose to £2 billion – on top of the £6.2 billion cost of building the vessels.
The F-35C is propelled off the deck by a catapult, and "trapped" when it lands.
Commanders have formally recommended that the Government buy the F-35B, which operates like a Harrier jump jet, and Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, has asked the Prime Minister to "sign off" the proposal.
But the disagreements between commanders and ministers were so protracted that there is no longer enough time left in the parliamentary calendar to make the announcement before Easter.
Instead, MPs will be told later next month. It is the first major change to the controversial Strategic Defence and Security Review, which critics say has been driven by financial, not military, need.
A Whitehall source said: "There will be short-term pain for the Government, but in the long run it is by far the best option. Adapting the carriers is skewing the defence budget out of shape."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164950/New-delay-over-fighter-jet-choice.html
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/03/2012 | 13:10 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2012 | 01:44 uur
Hier heb ik onvoldoende inzicht in, maar als ik de prestaties zie van de nieuwe generatie Russische kisten in wendbaarheid en snelheid dan doen ze toch blijkbaar iets goeds.
Vrijwel alle huidige westerse kisten leggen het momenteel af (volgens de publieke informatie) tegen een SU-35 in performance (m.u.v. de F-22 en wellicht de F-15 familie of de EF in een dog-fight scenario)
Jurrien de lessen uit het verleden leert ons dat een eenmotorige kist vaak een betere wendbaarheid heeft dan een tweemotorige kist, dat was ook de reden dat de A-4 Skyhawk een succes was en de F-16 nog steeds een succes is, daarom denk ik dat de Gripen NG ook een kist is met een goede wendbaarheid is de JAS-39 is dat in ieder geval al.
De F-5 Freedom Fighter / Tiger familie is ook wendbaar en een groot succes. Maar er zitten wel 2 motoren in ;)
Twee motorige jachtvliegtuigen hebben over het algemeen een merkbaar betere motorvermogen / gewicht verhouding dan 1 motorige jachtvliegtuigen. Deze verhouding is een van de belangrijke graadmeters voor wendbaarheid.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2012 | 00:23 uur
Ik zie de F15(SE) als het alternatief, zeker i.c.m. nieuwe motoren, maar telkens als ik dit alternatief aandraag (in mijn ogen het best betaalbare en zeer bruikbaar voor de Klu) wordt deze optie zelfs op dit forum als niet realistisch afgedaan, waarbij dit toch echt een betaalbaar en beter alternatief is dan alle Europese en Amerikaanse concurrenten bij elkaar. (uitzondering de F22 welke helaas geen optie is)
Iedereen blijft maar praten over de Gripen.... leuke kist, zeker als we er 85 van kopen! (maar helaas vrienden... de politiek heeft besloten dat 68 het max is).
+1
F-15SE staat al heel lang op mijn alternatievenlijst op nummer 1, een kist betaalbaar en onderhoudbaar, tevens in de komende jaren nog steeds in gebruik door de US en diverse landen. En heeft nog zeker een kans tegen de Russische, Chineese, Europeese en US-made tegenstanders.
Rafale op 2
Gripen NG op 3
Citaat van: Harald op 25/03/2012 | 19:40 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2012 | 00:23 uur
Ik zie de F15(SE) als het alternatief, zeker i.c.m. nieuwe motoren, maar telkens als ik dit alternatief aandraag (in mijn ogen het best betaalbare en zeer bruikbaar voor de Klu) wordt deze optie zelfs op dit forum als niet realistisch afgedaan, waarbij dit toch echt een betaalbaar en beter alternatief is dan alle Europese en Amerikaanse concurrenten bij elkaar. (uitzondering de F22 welke helaas geen optie is)
Iedereen blijft maar praten over de Gripen.... leuke kist, zeker als we er 85 van kopen! (maar helaas vrienden... de politiek heeft besloten dat 68 het max is).
+1
F-15SE staat al heel lang op mijn alternatievenlijst op nummer 1, een kist betaalbaar en onderhoudbaar, tevens in de komende jaren nog steeds in gebruik door de US en diverse landen. En heeft nog zeker een kans tegen de Russische, Chineese, Europeese en US-made tegenstanders.
Rafale op 2
Gripen NG op 3
Wat wij hier willen op dit forum is niet belangrijk....bobo's binnen de luchtmacht en politiek gaan gewoon die JSF kopen ook als gaat dat ding zo 150 miljoen euro per stuk kosten, voor hun moet dat ding er komen...waarschijnlijk omdat ze hun zakken gaan vullen als ze deze deal erdoor weten te drukken...m.a.w. ik vermoed dat er hier en daar goed met steekpenningen is geschoven.
Marine Corps Chief Eyes New Cost-Cutting Plan for F-35B Aircraft
Gen. James F. Amos came under intense fire this month on Capitol Hill after he acknowledged that he did not know the precise cost overruns in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
One of the program's staunchest critics, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pressed Amos during a March 15 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to explain recent data that shows a $150 billion cost growth in the JSF program since 2001.
McCain's line of questioning appeared to have caught Amos off guard. His spokesman Lt. Col. Joseph M. Plenzler, said the question was misdirected as the general's focus has been on just one piece of the JSF program -- the short-takeoff and vertical landing F-35B -- and he should not have been expected to know cost trends for all three variants of the aircraft that are being produced for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
"Senator McCain's questions were about the cost growth of the entire F-35 program since 2001, not the F-35B specifically," Plenzler wrote in an email. "Since becoming Commandant, General Amos has indeed closely tracked current production costs, production rates, and developmental testing progress."
But Amos does have concerns about a rising price tag for the F-35B and plans to take action to reduce costs, such as buying fewer aircraft than originally planned and reevaluating program requirements, Plenzler said.
Amos has been a vocal champion of the F-35B, and has fought over the past year to get the program off the "probationary" status that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates mandated as the aircraft faced problematic issues such as excess weight, the ability to transition from vertical to horizontal flight and other technical setbacks.
Amos has said repeatedly that he keeps tabs on the F-35B on a daily basis, and set up his own situation room at the Pentagon, where he can monitor program data that is updated daily. "I track it like the Dow Jones," Amos said at an industry conference last year. "I've got three large computer screens and the left one is consumed with JSF. I know when the guy on the assembly line down in Lockheed Martin takes his break."
Amos meets every six weeks in his office to examine cost and schedule issues with senior leadership from the F-35 program, Plenzler added. Those meetings include representatives from JSF manufacturer Lockheed Martin, Defense Department, Navy and Marine aviation.
Although Marine officials said the technical glitches in F-35B were fixed and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta took the F-35 off probation in January, the program is not out of the woods.
"The commandant recently initiated two efforts to reduce F-35B program costs," Plenzler said. One is to lower the F-35B production ramp rate. Amos also will be "reviewing decade-old requirements data to ensure relevance and cost acceptability," he said.
The JSF is far from being in danger of termination, as the Pentagon has bet the entire future of U.S. military combat aviation on the program. But getting JSF out of the congressional doghouse could take years, and all three branches of the military are likely to push the schedule to the right as cost overruns pile up.
In a February report to Congress, aviation analyst Jeremiah Gertler of the Congressional Research Service, said lawmakers might want to "review the causes" of why the F-35 is behind schedule and over budget. "Although the F-35 was conceived as a relatively affordable strike fighter, some observers are concerned that in a situation of constrained DOD resources, F-35s might not be affordable in the annual quantities planned by DOD, at least not without reducing funding for other DOD programs," Gertler wrote. "As the annual production rate of the F-35 increases, the program will require more than $10 billion per year in acquisition funding at the same time that DOD will face other budgetary challenges."
Previous Pentagon plans had contemplated increasing the procurement rate of F-35Bs and Cs for the Marine Corps and Navy to a combined sustained rate of 50 aircraft per year by fiscal year 2014, and completing the planned procurement of 680 F-35Bs and Cs by about 2025. But those projections went out the window two years ago when Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter restructured the program and added 13 months to the development schedule.
If further delays keep pushing full-rate production further into the next decade, the fear is that the unit cost of the aircraft could skyrocket, creating the dreaded "death spiral" of soaring cost that has doomed other Pentagon big-ticket procurements.
"There is a tension between reducing costs by increasing production rates and keeping up with developmental changes," Gertler said. "Lockheed Martin has been pushing hard to increase the production rate, arguing its production line is ready and it has reduced problems on the line to speed things up," he said. "Speeding up production, of course, would boost economies of scale and help lower the politically sensitive price per plane."
The six F-35Bs and four F-35Cs requested for fiscal year 2013 in the Department of the Navy budget have a combined estimated procurement cost of $2.6 billion, or an average of $263.9 million each. CRS study noted that these aircraft have received $226.3 million in prior-year advance-procurement funding, leaving another $2.4 billion to be funded in 2013 to complete their projected procurement cost.
At the SASC hearing, McCain voiced exasperation about the budgetary smoke and mirrors that he has seen in the F-35 program for years. "All I can say is that I have been watching this aircraft since 2001, and I've watched the cost overruns now, and I don't believe that it's an accurate state. There's been roughly $150 billion additional costs, and we are now still in the early stages of what was planned to be 2,456 aircraft."
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said he is confident that the service will buy the currently planned quantities of carrier and STOVL variants. Despite all the recent troubles, he said, "We have remained constant in the number of total aircraft that we will buy in the program -- 680 aircraft total for the Department of the Navy. That's 420 for the Marine Corps, including 360 B's and 80 C's for the Marines."
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=724
Stealth is niet meer het toverwoord.
Zoals een F-117 "onzichtbaar" was door Stealth voor de toen gebruikte radar-systemen, zal een F-35 in de toekomst ook zo onzichtbaar zijn voor de in aanbouw zijnde SAM- systemen als de S-300, S-400 en S-500. Welke ook geexporteerd worden.
Stealth is niet meer het toverwoord, zoals het was in de jaren 90 en 2000
Russische SAM -ontwikkelingen
The asymmetric dimension to future Russian air warfare programs entails the development of counter very-low-observable (CVLO) radar technologies and long-range, high-speed surface-to-air missile (SAM) designs, complemented by a new generation of short-range point defense weapons intended to destroy incoming guided weapons, especially anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles and guided bombs. All systems are built for high mobility, typically with 5-min. "shoot and scoot" times to permit "scooting" inside of the targeting and engagement cycles of most guided munitions.
The focus in Russian CVLO radar has been in the 1-meter VHF band. Stealth shaping in fighters is largely ineffective in VHF because components such as stabilizers and wingtips have dimensions close to the radar wavelength. Radar-absorbent treatments developed for S-band and above are ineffective in VHF due to both electrical behavior and thickness.
The flagship product is the NNIIRT/Almaz-Antey 55Zh6M Nebo M 3-D radar system, of which 100 were recently ordered to re-equip Russian air defense forces. The Nebo M is uniquely a "multi-band" design, comprising three radars and a central data fusion and command post module, all carried on separate high-mobility 8 x 8 24-ton vehicles.
The RLM-M VHF-band, RLM-D L-band and RLM-S C/X-band radars all feed tracking data to the command van's data fusion system—which resembles the U.S. Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability system—using high-speed narrow-beam digital data links in the microwave band. All radars appear to be solid-state active, electronically scanned array (AESA) designs. The intent of the Nebo M design is for the RLM-M to detect stealth targets, and cue the RLM-D and -S components to produce exact tracking data, bypassing the initial acquisition problems otherwise seen in mid/upper-band radars with VLO targets. Range performance has not been disclosed but the RLM-M is expected to better the earlier Nebo- SVU by at least 40%.
The earlier NNIIRT 1L119E Nebo-SVU VHF AESA does not appear to have been built in large numbers, and used a less mobile semi-trailer configuration. The Nebo-SVU was credited with space-time adaptive processing technology similar to that or the Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye, and in 2002 NNIIRT's Igor Krylov said "We can see the stealth [F-117A] as clearly as any other plane".
The push into CVLO radar is paralleled by investment in highly mobile long-range SAM designs with high speed and short flight times. The intent is twofold—to deny airspace to standoff and penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and electronic attack platforms, while permitting SAMs to close with stealth targets before they can retreat from tracking range.
Russia's future integrated air defense system will be constructed around the S-400 Triumf (SA-21 "Growler") strategic SAM, and the S-500 Triumfator M or SA-X-NN SAM and missile defense system. The S-400 is now deployed with air defense regiments at Dubrovka, Elektrostal and Vladivostok.
The S-400 is a direct evolution of the S-300PMU2 (SA‑20B "Gargoyle"), retaining the space feed X-band engagement radar, tubular launch containers and basic missile airframe. The digital multimode 92N6E Grave Stone uses Sparc digital processing, and directional microwave data links to missile transporter erector launchers (TELs) and acquisition radars, such as the heavily revised 91N6E battle management radar that is based on the 5N64/64N6E/E2 Big Bird series. New semi-trailer 5P85TE2 and 8 X 8 self-propelled 5P90S/SE TELs), based on the BAZ-6909, replace earlier designs.
The baseline 48N6E3/DM missile is an enhanced "Gargoyle" with a cited range of 250 km (155 mi.). It is soon to be supplemented by the yet-to-be-seen new 40N6 missile credited with a range of 400 km. Belarus will be the first export client.
In a parallel development, army air defense units are receiving the S-300V4 upgrade to the legacy "Sprint-like" S-300V (SA-12 "Giant"/"Gladiator") SAM/ABM, involving tracked TEL upgrades and the new 9M82M and 9M83M missiles developed for the Antey-2500 or SA-X-23, credited with 200-250 km and 120-130 km ranges, respectively. Russia has yet to disclose whether the 9S32 Grill Pan radars are to be replaced by the larger 9S32M Grill Screen in the S-300V4 program.
The upper tier of the future Russian SAM network is the S-500, currently in advanced development. Disclosures have been limited, but material released in mid-2010 suggests a missile derived from the 9M82M is likely, with a range of 500-600 km and ABM capability. The radar suite is to comprise the Big Bird-derived 91N6A(M) acquisition and battle management radar, the revised 96L6-TsP acquisition radar, and the new 76T6 multimode engagement and 77T6 ABM engagement radars.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p64-434177.xml&headline=Fighters,%20Missiles%20For%20Countering%20Stealth&next=10
Wat ik nou niet helemaal begrijp, de JSF word geplaagd door allerlei tegenvallers.
De F-22 Raptor schijnt een zeer goed toestel te zijn.
Nu weet ik dat de productie stopt en dat er een exportverbod op zit, maar waarom zet men niet in om met de F-22 verder te gaan.
Hef dat exportverbod op, verkoop hem aan je bondgenoten, produceer hem in grote aantallen dan gaat de prijs ook fors omlaag.
Ben ik nou zo dom ?
Citaat van: Tanker op 26/03/2012 | 10:07 uur
Wat ik nou niet helemaal begrijp, de JSF word geplaagd door allerlei tegenvallers.
De F-22 Raptor schijnt een zeer goed toestel te zijn.
Nu weet ik dat de productie stopt en dat er een exportverbod op zit, maar waarom zet men niet in om met de F-22 verder te gaan.
Hef dat exportverbod op, verkoop hem aan je bondgenoten, produceer hem in grote aantallen dan gaat de prijs ook fors omlaag.
Ben ik nou zo dom ?
Het tegenovergestelde van dom!
Als de Amerikanen morgen de F22 te koop aan bieden, dan hebben ze per direct orders uit Australië, Japan en Israel.
Met < 200 F22 gaan de Amerikanen het, mijns inzien, niet redden tegen de aanstormende Russische en Aziatische capaciteiten rond 2020-2025, het vrijgeven van de Raptor voor export betekend dus per direct een groter aantal.
Daarnaast is wel eens door analisten becijferd dat als de productie in voldoende aantal weer op gang zou worden gebracht (en dat kan want LM heeft, tegen het gebruik in, de prodcuctie lijn wel stil gelegt, maar alles in de opslag gedaan zodat ze relatief eenvoudig, tegen accepteable kosten, de lijn weer in gebruik kunnen nemen) de prijs per F22 naar de 100 mjn usd kan.
Door het beperkte aantal F22's denk ik dat de Amerikanen een strategische (politieke) fout hebben gemaakt die ze na 2020 het luchtoverwicht gaat kosten.
Bij Amerikaanse wet is het export verbod ingesteld, maar een wet is zo weer terug te draaien. (al gaat dit per direct ten koste van de JSF)
Als deze (lopende) discussie in de USA door de pro Raptor lobby wordt gewonnen, dan ben ik er uit; lever 36 tot 48 kisten aan de Klu en klaar zijn we (aangevuld met UCAV's)!
Citaat van: Harald op 26/03/2012 | 09:25 uur
Stealth is niet meer het toverwoord.
Kortom... we hebben behoeft aan een snelle en wendbare multirole kist met veel capaciteit... en wat hou je dan over..... ehhh F15SE
Als ...ja de F22 zou mooi zijn..een echte luchtoverwicht jager voor de Luchtmacht !..maar we hebben ook jachtbommenwerpers nodig..
een mix van F-22 en F-15SE ? twee squadrons van ieder 30 stuks ?..zou mooi zijn en zeer compleet !
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 26/03/2012 | 10:55 uur
Als ...ja de F22 zou mooi zijn..een echte luchtoverwicht jager voor de Luchtmacht !..maar we hebben ook jachtbommenwerpers nodig..
een mix van F-22 en F-15SE ? twee squadrons van ieder 30 stuks ?..zou mooi zijn en zeer compleet !
De F22 is ondergaat mometeel een nieuwe update waardoor ze meer capaciteiten krijgt als jachtbommewerper.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/03/2012 | 10:57 uur
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 26/03/2012 | 10:55 uur
Als ...ja de F22 zou mooi zijn..een echte luchtoverwicht jager voor de Luchtmacht !..maar we hebben ook jachtbommenwerpers nodig..
een mix van F-22 en F-15SE ? twee squadrons van ieder 30 stuks ?..zou mooi zijn en zeer compleet !
De F22 is ondergaat mometeel een nieuwe update waardoor ze meer capaciteiten krijgt als jachtbommewerper.
Hoeveel kan een F22 meenemen aan bewapening ??....... extern : 4x 5000 pounds (totaal : 9072 kg) dus non-stealth, intern kan de F22 ook het e.e.a. meenemen
F-22 Carriage Capability
The F-22's combat configuration is "clean", that is, with all armament carried internally and with no external stores. This is an important factor in the F-22's stealth characteristics, and it improves the fighter's aerodynamics by dramatically reducing drag, which, in turn, improves the F-22's range. The F-22 has four under wing hardpoints, each capable of carrying 5,000 pounds. A single pylon design, which features forward and aft sway braces, an aft pivot, electrical connections, and fuel and air connections, is used. Either a 600-gallon fuel tank or two LAU-128/A missile launchers can be attached to the bottom of the pylon, depending on the mission.
There are two basic external configurations for the F-22: Four 600 gallon fuel tanks, no external weapons: This configuration is used when the aircraft is being ferried and extra range is needed. A BRU-47/A rack is used on each pylon to hold the external tanks. Two 600 gallon fuel tanks, four missiles: This configuration is used after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP). The external fuel tanks, held by a BRU-47/A rack are carried on the inboard stations, while a pylon fitted with two LAU-128/A rail launchers is fitted to each of the outboard stations. An all-missile external loadout (two missiles on each of the stations) is possible and would not be difficult technically to integrate, but the Air Force has not stated a requirement for this configuration.
The LAU-128/A rail launcher is the standard rail launcher used today on the F-15 and can carry either of the missiles used on the F-22, AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-9 Sidewinder. However, both missiles carried on the fire missile adapter configuration for F-22 must be the same type for aircraft weight and balance considerations. The 600-gallon fuel tanks are similar to the same external tanks that are used on the current F-15 Eagle. However, a new tank is being developed that has baffles in it to prevent the fuel from sloshing. This gives the tank better center of gravity control, which allows for safe jettisoning of the tanks. The BRU-47/A rack is not the same type of rack that is used internally on the F-22 to carry the GBU-32 1,000-pound class Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), although they are similar and both are currently in use. However, there are no plans to carry JDAM externally on F-22. The BRU-47 will only be used to hold the external fuel tanks. Een voorbeeld van de wapenlasten welke de F22 kan meenemen
http://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-22-weapons-2006.gif|||
In vergelijking, een F-15E kan een wapenlast meenemen van 23,000 lb (10,400 kg)
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 26/03/2012 | 10:55 uur
Als ...ja de F22 zou mooi zijn..een echte luchtoverwicht jager voor de Luchtmacht !..maar we hebben ook jachtbommenwerpers nodig..
een mix van F-22 en F-15SE ? twee squadrons van ieder 30 stuks ?..zou mooi zijn en zeer compleet !
tja ... F-22 is een stap te ver, ook financieel (denk ik)
Ik zou niet voor een mix gaan, alleen de F-15SE ...... een zeer goede en bewezen multi-roll, met F-35 sensoren
Citaat van: Harald op 26/03/2012 | 12:04 uur
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 26/03/2012 | 10:55 uur
Als ...ja de F22 zou mooi zijn..een echte luchtoverwicht jager voor de Luchtmacht !..maar we hebben ook jachtbommenwerpers nodig..
een mix van F-22 en F-15SE ? twee squadrons van ieder 30 stuks ?..zou mooi zijn en zeer compleet !
tja ... F-22 is een stap te ver, ook financieel (denk ik)
Ik zou niet voor een mix gaan, alleen de F-15SE ...... een zeer goede en bewezen multi-roll, met F-35 sensoren
Financieel juist niet dus, omdat die bij een hogere produktie uitkomt op 100 mio per stuk !...goedkoper zo dan een JSF
Europe Poised For Gradual Updates To Fighters
Mar 26, 2012
By Robert Wall
London
The severe budget austerity gripping much of Europe does not augur well for air forces looking to achieve leaps in capability for the next decade. It is somewhat a matter of luck, then, that foreign demand is effectively pushing stingy treasuries to provide funding to field upgrades.
The list of European militaries likely to benefit from these export-driven enhancements is long and includes the Swedish, French, British and German air forces.
Many of the budget issues associated with introducing some of the enhancements must still be defined, with key decisions on several fronts due in the coming months. Still, if funding plans are not further derailed, some of the largest European air forces should see a step-increase in their combat capability by the end of the decade, through either the introduction of new weapons and sensors on established platforms or the fielding of their first stealth aircraft, the Lockheed Martin F-35.
One country trying to lock in its combat aircraft plans over the coming months is Sweden, where the government is working to allocate funds to help field the Saab Gripen NG, the next major update of the single-engine fighter. Although Sweden itself does not need the new model for several years, the government had committed to accelerate its own fielding plans to support the schedule set by any foreign buyer. Switzerland's decision in December to take the aircraft—a contract still has to be finalized this year—means Sweden's own plans will be advanced. Bern wants its first fighter in 2015 to replace F-5s.
The Swedish military, meanwhile, has spelled out its own requirements for the Gripen NG in a memorandum to the government. It provides for a force structure of at least 60-80 JAS 39 Gripen NG fighters through to 2040, according to Gen. Sverker Goransson, supreme commander of the Swedish armed forces. As part of the effort to retain the combat capability, a modernization of the fighters should begin in 2020 and run through the next decade.
In a statement, the Swedish defense ministry notes that discussions over price are only now starting. A long-term budget report is due in May, with the goal of helping to include that financing allocation in the budget proposal to go to parliament in September for approval before year-end.
The military's planning document to the government underpins key elements of the Gripen NG, including the requirement for an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and an improved self-protection system. The Gripen NG also will sport a more powerful engine and greater endurance.
Saab has already put the Gripen NG demonstrator through several series of flight tests and is eyeing another test period in the next few weeks. This one will see the aircraft flying with a production prototype of the Selex Galileo ES-05 Raven AESA radar.
Even before then, the Swedish air force should be able to see increases in its combat capability with the introduction of the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile around 2015; fielding a small bomb is also being considered. Other near-term items on the agenda are a helmet-mounted display and cockpit updates.
For the core air forces operating the Eurofighter Typhoon, the issue of both near- and long-term upgrades must still be sorted. For example, the British and German air forces, as well as Italian and Spanish users, have all expressed interest in upgrading the fighter's radar with an AESA, although they have not allocated funding for this endeavor. Instead, they have relied on industry self-funding much of the early development because of the need to keep the combat aircraft internationally competitive.
While hoping to have a raft of Typhoon upgrades available by March 2018, the U.K. so far has failed to address when key elements of those enhancements—such as the Storm Shadow cruise missile and Meteor air-to-air missile—will emerge on the fighter.
The situation is more settled in France, at least for now. Partly because of France's determination to secure an export order for Rafale, the government moved to finance upgrades to the twin-engine fighter in order to make the system attractive in international competitions. That push, more than the needs of the French air force and navy, drove Paris to allocate funding several years ago to ensure upgrades to the REB2 radar, optronics (electro-optical) system and electronic warfare equipment (the DDM-NG). The F3-04T standard is due for qualification this year, ahead of delivery in 2013.
The French navy and air force can also look to further upgrades beyond 2013. The government has placed an order for Meteor air-to-air missiles that should become available around 2018. Also in store is a targeting pod enhancement, adding video capability to Damocles.
One big unknown is how the outcome of the French presidential election—the second and final round is due in May—will affect long-term budget plans. The pace of introducing some of the upgrades into French forces could slide.
In addition, France will face another series of Rafale upgrades in the next decade as military leaders seek to prepare the backbone of their combat aircraft fleet for a major mid-life modification. Thus, the shopping list is long and still includes radical ideas such as adding conformal radar arrays to provide enhanced sensor coverage and radar-cross-section reductions.
In the meantime, Europe's exact F-35 plans remain in flux, even though the U.K. and Netherlands will receive their first aircraft this year. Perhaps the biggest cloud hangs over Britain's F-35, since the government has been slow in spelling out its inventory objective. London is dragging its feet as it tries to determine the full program costs, including those linked to the aircraft-carrier modifications to install a catapult launch and arrester gear system to accommodate the switch to the F-35C from the B model.
Italy, even though it recently slashed its F-35 procurement plans to 90 units from 131, is due to receive its first aircraft in 2014. Other European plans remain to be locked in, such as in Norway and the Netherlands. The latter two may seek to cooperate on fielding the fighter and also bring in Denmark if it firmly commits to the F-35 as its F-16 replacement; the Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing F/A-18E/F are still aiming to supplant the F-35 there.
But even as the primary goal of European militaries is to upgrade their latest fighters and field new ones, budget realities require that many of the existing combat aircraft will remain in service for some time. That situation is driving another series of upgrades, which are now being put in place to keep legacy fleets viable past 2020.
Germany, for example, which is unwilling to buy more Eurofighters or to fund enhancements that would enable them take on additional roles, also is financing an upgrade drive for its Tornado fleet. The plan is to keep the aircraft operational until 2025—not just in its strike role, but also as a tactical reconnaissance asset and suppression of enemy air defense system.
This year will see deliveries to the German air force of aircraft updated to the Avionics System Software Tornado Ada (Assta) 3.0 standard. Assta brings the aircraft into the Link-16 data-sharing network with the introduction of Multifunction Information Distribution System (MIDS) terminals, adds digital voice and data recorders, and will allow pilots to drop Laser Joint Direct Attack Munitions.
A further evolution is already in the cards, with Assta 3.1 slated to introduce color displays that will add further MIDS functionality.
France also wants to ensure that some of its legacy platforms continue to be viable. The defense procurement agency (DGA) has awarded Thales a contract to modify the Astac tactical electronic intelligence pod for use on Mirage 2000Ds; the mission has been conducted by the Mirage F1CR, which is being phased out in 2014.
This move plugs a potential operational gap in France's tactical reconnaissance capability that is expected after the Mirage F1 is removed from service. The eventual retirement of the Mirage 2000's Astac elint pod means the Rafale likely will take on that role. But the Thales award could help ensure continuity of the capability in the near term. Thales, which also is the prime contractor for Rafale's Spectre electronic warfare suite, notes that the system has the fidelity to also function as an elint collector.
The French air force is eager to maintain the capability because it believes employing the sigint tool on a fighter can trick air defense operators into activating their radar and allow vital information to be gleaned.
One big question still to be resolved is the pace at which European militaries move to embrace unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs). Funding and political issues still must be sorted. In Germany, for example, the concept of arming regular unmanned aircraft is very controversial, let alone fielding an autonomous UCAV.
France and the U.K.—under their strategic defense partnership—have signaled that BAE Systems and Dassault could begin collaborating in the UCAV domain, although specific timeframes and requirements to do so must be spelled out.
In addition, how other countries may play a role in a Anglo-French UCAV program is still up for debate.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p58-431862.xml&headline=Europe%20Poised%20For%20Gradual%20Updates%20To%20Fighters&next=20
De hoogste tijd voor een positief stuk rondom de JSF, wat het e.e.a. in perspectief plaatst!
F-35 Fighter Costs: Six Ways To Make A Bargain Seem Unaffordable
The tortured path of the Pentagon's biggest weapon program is beginning to look like a case study in poor management. The problem isn't the F-35 fighter, which is making steady progress towards becoming the best tactical aircraft ever built. The problem is a federal acquisition culture that has grown so risk-averse it no longer cares about long-term consequences.
That bureaucratic myopia will be in abundant display next month, when the Department of Defense releases updated cost estimates for the fighter program. The estimates will reveal a modest increase in the cost of each plane, and Pentagon policymakers will repeat for the umpteenth time all of the heroic steps they have taken to rein in a wayward contractor. But don't expect them to take any responsibility for the cost increases because, after all, they're the good guys.
If you follow the F-35 program closely, which almost nobody outside the Pentagon does, a different narrative emerges. It is the story of what happens to major technology programs in a balkanized, distracted political system when there is no urgent danger to push them forward. Bureaucratic and personal agendas fill the vacuum once occupied by the threat, and so programs seldom stay on track — leaving the nation unprepared when the next big threat appears.
Maybe you're incredulous that the real reason the F-35 program has become so controversial is government behavior. After all, I advise many of the companies involved in the program so I'm not objective, right? Fair enough. I'll abandon generalities and provide concrete examples of what the Pentagon has done wrong (the examples aren't hard to find). Here are six ways that the military acquisition system makes a bargain seem unafforbable.
1. Develop a plan for holding down costs, then ignore it. The F-35 fighter was conceived as the cheapest way of modernizing the tactical air fleets of three U.S. military services and eight foreign allies. The key to keeping it cheap was to fund a compressed development program in which production quickly ramped up to the kind of rates providing economies of scale. The Clinton Administration had a plan for doing that, and the Bush Administration tried to stick with it despite encountering the usual challenges any next-generation weapon system faces. But the Obama Administration decided not to take any chances, repeatedly restructuring the program and slowing it down.
The official story on why the program was delayed was problems in developing and testing the plane. But the production rate will remain depressed long after testing has concluded, and tests to date have not revealed major design issues anyway. The real reason it was slowed, with $30 billion being taken out of the program over the last three budget cycles, was so the money could be used for other things. Under the Obama plan, the number of F-35s produced through the end of the President's second term (assuming there is one) will be 365 rather than the 1,600 originally planned. The idea of a quick production ramp-up is dead, along with the economies of scale it would have produced.
2. Issue cost estimates nobody understands. A year ago, the Pentagon provoked a political firestorm by revealing that it would cost over a trillion dollars to operate and support F-35s once they had been produced. Nobody in Congress had ever seen a weapon system that cost so much, and some legislators concluded the system must be unaffordable. What got lost in all the noise was that the F-35 was the first big aircraft program ever that the Pentagon tried to project costs for over a 50-year period.
And I don't mean in today's dollars. The trillion-dollar cost projection was in what the Pentagon calls then-year dollars, meaning with inflation included. That's right, the Department of Defense really thinks it knows what the inflation rate is going to be in 2035, so it's included in a cost estimate that stretches from 2015 to 2065. Try applying that same methodology to the four-dollar latte you buy each day, and you'll discover that over the next five decades it will cost you more in nominal terms than a typical house currently sells for in Cleveland. So of course Congress was upset. The Pentagon didn't have an estimate of what the program would cost in today's dollars, but it helpfully threw in an estimate in "base-year" 2002 dollars. How confusing is that?
3. Blame the contractor for cost increases the government caused. Congressional ire over F-35 support costs was exacerbated when the media reported that projections had increased by over a hundred percent since the program began without any corresponding increase in the number of planes. Many legislators assumed this signaled massive cost overruns. What it really signaled, though, was changes in the way the government calculated support costs. For instance, it decided to estimate costs over 50 years rather than 30 years, it increased the number of operating bases from 33 to 49, and it doubled some categories of equipment needed to sustain the plane.
It also changed its ground rules for projecting future labor rates, fuel usage, material costs and other inputs, without making any adjustment for program features aimed at holding down those costs. And it included the cost of lifetime modifications to the aircraft aimed at improving its performance — expenses that are not included in the projections for other aircraft. It turns out that about three-quarters of all the "increases" in F-35 support costs were caused by changes in the scope and methods of government estimators rather than actual escalation in costs. But almost nobody outside the Pentagon realized that.
4. Never explain costs in a meaningful context. If a development program was begun to meet valid operational requirements but is experiencing cost growth, the logical question is whether there are other ways of meeting the same needs. Congress has a mechanism for reporting cost overruns called the Nunn-McCurdy process that is designed to address that question. But Pentagon policymakers never put F-35 cost trends in perspective by detailing the price of potential alternatives. If they did, it would be obvious the current program remains a bargain.
For instance, some analysts have proposed that the military scale back its purchase of F-35s and instead keep relying on Cold War planes such as the Air Force's F-16 and the Navy's F/A-18. However, the cost of maintaining the existing fleet of legacy fighters each year is already greater than the projected cost for the F-35s that will replace them, and the burden of supporting old fighters will double over the next decade as metal fatigue, corrosion and parts obsolescence take their inevitable toll. Over the long haul, it would cost the military 3-4 times more to keep existing fighters flying than it would to replace them with the F-35. Unfortunately, nobody ever explains that to Congress so legislators lack the budgetary context to assess options.
5. Don't discuss the long-term consequences of current choices. Last week, senior Pentagon officials proposed a further slowing of the F-35 program designed to calibrate production rates to contractor performance. None of the various officials discussing the new approach in congressional hearings said anything about the long-term consequences of waiting so long to get the program into serial production. Reflecting the tenor of the Obama Administration's recently announced Asia-Pacific posture, the implicit assumption is that near-term delays in programs will have "manageable" consequences for future administrations.
However, recent history suggests the opposite could be the case — that delaying tactical-aircraft modernization could leave the military unprepared for the next big threat, and might even encourage aggression. From Sputnik to the Tet Offensive to 9-11, military planners have a stunningly poor record of anticipating new challenges. They all agree enemies are likely to strike where America is weak, and yet no one seems to draw the obvious inference that if air fleets have grown decrepit with age that is a signal to rising powers about what strategy might work best. In other words, the biggest bill taxpayers are likely to get as a result of how the F-35 program is being managed isn't for the planes, but for the consequences of not having them in adequate numbers when the next big aggressor comes along.
6. Send the wrong signals to domestic and foreign audiences. With the single exception of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, senior Pentagon officials often seem to be competing with each other to utter the most negative comments about the F-35 program. When Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter discussed the program's support costs before the Senate Armed Services Committee last May, he called them "unacceptable" and "unaffordable" rather than explaining they were inflated. More recently, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told the same committee the military has "no more money to put against contract overruns or problems" in the F-35 program — which is an odd statement coming from a service that keeps reducing money for the program.
Such gratuitous expressions of outrage undermine support for the program in Congress and among allies, even though the F-35 remains by far the most cost-effective solution to future air-power needs for the U.S. and its overseas allies. Several of the countries that have been in the program from the beginning such as Canada and Norway have recently reiterated their support, but it is clear that criticism coming out of Washington has not helped the cause of selling F-35s to foreign partners. Instead of scoring political points by adopting an adversarial, punitive approach to the industrial team developing the F-35, the government needs to offer a more balanced picture of what has been accomplished — one reflecting an awareness of how severely U.S. security would be impaired if the program does not go forward.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/03/26/f-35-fighter-costs-six-ways-to-make-a-bargain-seem-unaffordable/3/
F-35s Don't Meet Military's Requirements, Documents Show
First Posted: 03/26/2012 8:06 pm Updated: 03/27/2012 1:55 am
The federal government didn't follow normal procurement procedures to buy the F-35 fighter jets and the plane fails to meet at least one critical feature the government stipulated must be met, documents viewed by CBC News suggest.
CBC Power & Politics host Evan Solomon reported Monday that the exclusive new evidence reveals for the first time the Canadian military's requirements for the aircraft that are to replace the aging fleet of CF-18s.
Solomon said the statement of operational requirements, a document that has never been made public, outlines what the plane must be able to do in order to be purchased.
It describes specific mandatory characteristics without which the overall operational capability would be "unacceptably diminished."
One of the 28 mandatory requirements listed is for the plane's sensor requirements. The document says the plane must be capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment.
"According to the U.S. Department of Defence there are so many problems with this feature that they're actually designing a backup. In other words, the plane can't do it," Solomon reported.
Questions are also being raised about the brief amount of time between when the statement of operational requirements was written and when Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced the purchase.
The document, referred to as "Version 1.0" of the statement of operational requirements for the "next generation fighter capability" was issued on June 1, 2010.
It would normally take one to two years after a statement of operational requirements is issued to hold a competition to find a product and sign a contract with a supplier.
But MacKay appeared on Power & Politics less than two months later, on July 16, 2010, to announce that the government was moving forward with the F-35 purchase.
The government plans to buy 65 planes from Lockheed Martin as part of a joint purchasing program with other countries.
Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister at the Department of National Defence and the official who signed the memorandum of understanding in 2002 that brought Canada into the Joint Strike Fighter program, said normal procedures weren't followed.
"Not only is it not normal, but it's a complete hijacking and rigging of the process," he said in an interview on Monday's Power & Politics.
"In 2006, the military and civilians recommended the F-35 to the minister and four years later, they developed their requirements, obviously rigged or wired to ensure that the only jet to meet the requirements would be the one that they recommended four years earlier," Williams said.
But Christopher Alexander, MacKay's parliamentary secretary, told Solomon that the F-35 does meet the requirements, and "that's why it's been selected."
He said it's a developmental project and that "it's not unusual for items that are being procured for the Canadian Forces not to meet every one of the developmental requirements, it's a question of relative choices."
"You take the one that meets most of them," Alexander said.
The F-35 procurement, the costliest military purchase in Canadian history, is the source of ongoing controversy and is the subject of an auditor general's report that is being released next week. The government estimates the entire purchase and associated costs will be between $14 billion and $16 billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/26/canada-f35-fighter-program_n_1381242.html?ref=canada-politics
Defence Department never seriously considered buying anything other than the F-35: retired bureaucrat
Postmedia News Mar 26, 2012 – 6:31 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 26, 2012 9:51 PM ET
By Jeff Davis
Department of National Defence officials charged with selecting Canada's next fighter jet met with Lockheed Martin — maker of the F-35 — more times than with all other bidders combined before their billion-dollar decision to select it, access to information documents reveal.
Between 2005 and 2011, officials from DND's Next Generation Fighter Capability Office held a series of meetings with five major aircraft manufacturers "to evaluate and discuss potential replacements for the CF-18."
DND officials met with Lockheed Martin 21 times over the six-year period, the documents show, and it was the only company granted face time with key figures such as the chief of air staff and the parliamentary secretary for defence.
F-18 Super Hornet manufacturer Boeing landed seven meetings, while BAE, makers of the Eurofighter Typhoon, had eight meetings with Canadian officials. France's Dassault got only two meetings in which to pitch its Rafale jet, while the Swedish-made Saab Gripen was dismissed after only one.
Alan Williams, who retired from his role as DND's assistant deputy minister for materiel in 2005, said the military never seriously considered buying anything other than the F-35.
"The Gripen, the Typhoon, the Super Hornet, the Rafale — these were not on the radar," he said. "These are not what they wanted, so the meetings were mostly pro forma."
"It seems to me if you made up your mind what product you're going to buy, you won't waste time with anything else," Williams added.
In 2005, officers from the Next Generation Fighter Capability Office embarked on a fighter jet world tour. They visited the headquarters of all five producers — travelling to England, France, Sweden and the U.S. — for an initial look at each option.
Following this initial round, DND officials met with Lockheed Martin — mostly at its production facility in Fort Worth, Texas — seven times in 2006 and 2007 before any more meetings were held with other competitors.
Unlike any other bidder, Lockheed Martin held out enticing carrots to Canadian industry, in the form of meetings about: "Support to Industry Canada: An Industrial Participation Plan."
One of these meetings in 2009 featured discussions between Lockheed Martin and Canadian aerospace firm Pratt and Whitney, which specializes in jet engines. On its website, Pratt and Whitney now says its F119 engine is the "the forefather of the advanced F135 propulsion system, currently powering the F-35 Lightning II's flight test program"
Occurring parallel to Lockheed Martin's lobbying efforts were periodic F-35 CEO Conferences, in which key countries such as Canada that made earlier investments in the project received updates on the project.
In February 2010, Lockheed Martin officials visiting Ottawa became the first and only company to gain direct access to a political official: parliamentary secretary for defence Laurie Hawn.
The successful lobbying campaign ended on an apparent high note, in the form of a "Lockheed Martin Courtesy Call to the Chief of Air Staff" Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps.
David Bercuson, the director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said "there never really was a competition" at all.
Unlike any other jet under consideration, he said, Canada had already invested in the development of the F-35. Since 1997, when Canada signed on to the project as a partner nation, it has contributed more than $200 million U.S. to the project's coffers, the documents show.
"So it's not a surprise they would have met with Lockheed Martin many more times than anyone else," Bercuson said. "In effect, the government of Canada committed itself to be part of the project a long time ago."
Competitor companies know Lockheed Martin has the deal locked in, he said, but that won't stop them from trying.
"In a sense, Lockheed Martin is in the room with the government and everyone else is outside banging on the door," Bercuson said. "They're trying to persuade government this a bad choice and to open the competition."
Williams said DND procurement officials bowed to pressure from senior generals who wanted the F-35 and nothing else. As time went on, he said, the statement of requirement for Canada's next jet fighter was written in such a way that only the F-35 could win.
"Its what we call wiring the specs," Williams said. "This is the most distorted hijacking of a procurement process you could ever make."
Williams said the meetings with Lockheed's competitors may have been conducted "to lay a paper trail" and create the impression that all options were given due consideration.
NDP defence procurement critic Matthew Kellway said he's confounded by the government's refusal to seriously consider all options to replace the CF-18s.
"With so much going wrong, the easiest thing is to push it off arm's length by putting it out to tender," he said. "They have resisted that consistently and I can't understand why."
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/26/f-35-was-defence-departments-clear-choice-retired-bureaucrat/
Brazil's Rousseff to weigh French jet buy in India
By Yana Marull (AFP) – 9 hours ago
BRASILIA — President Dilma Rousseff plans to use her New Delhi visit later this week to sound out Indian leaders on the French Rafale fighter jet, which she is considering buying to beef up Brazil's air force.
On Wednesday Rousseff is to attend the New Delhi summit of the BRICS (Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa) nations aiming to discuss increased cooperation among the five emerging powers, including the establishment of their own development bank.
The next day Rousseff will begin a state visit in India, and officials say the Rafale, which India has selected for its air force, will be a top agenda item.
The Rafale, made by French firm Dassault, is in competition with the F/A-18 Super Hornet, manufactured by US aviation giant Boeing, and Swedish manufacturer Saab's Gripen jet, for a Brazilian contract for 36 aircraft valued at $4 billion and $7 billion.
"The exchange of ideas, impressions" on the Rafale "is certainly beneficial for us," Maria Edileuza Fonteneles Reis, a senior foreign ministry official, said last week.
"India's decision, which has not yet been formalized, could have an impact on Brazil's choice because it would show that the Rafale, which so far has never been exported to another country, has one customer," said Nelson During, a respected Brazilian defense experts who runs the Defesanet website.
"It could resurrect an old project debated by the two countries in 2002 to join hands to produce the same plane," he added.
Brazilian Defense Minister Celso Amorim traveled to India in February to discuss prospects for a "technical military accord."
"It's extremely interesting that the two countries are discussing a military accord" since each country could complement each other in the industrial sector, said During, recalling that India and Brazil plan to modernize their fighter jet fleet and develop a nuclear submarine.
A senior Brazilian government source said Rousseff will decide on which fighter jet to choose after her trip to India, her visit to Washington in April, and the French presidential election in May.
Last year, Brazil delayed a decision on the purchase following a major budget cut.
Rousseff also plans to commit to boosting bilateral trade with India from $9.2 billion last year to $15 billion by 2015, Reis said.
The two countries have developed closer ties since the creation of the IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) forum, launched in 2003 to boost South-South cooperation ties.
Meanwhile the BRICS summit was to zero in on a plan for "a BRICS bank, an international, investment bank of these five countries," Brazil's Industry and Trade Minister Fernando Pimentel said last week.
Pimentel said the proposed bank did not mean "abandoning multilateral mechanisms" such as the World Bank (WB) and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB), but was a response to today's economic necessities.
The New Delhi BRICS summit will be the fourth since the first held in 2009. South Africa joined the bloc in 2010.
Copyright © 2012 AFP.
The F-35 is not a $1 trillion program
Author(s): Winslow Wheeler
A recent article noted "an estimated $1 trillion to develop, purchase and support [the F-35] through 2050." The F-35 has, indeed, acquired the notoriety of being a "trillion dollar program." That characterization is inaccurate; it is more than that.
The 2010 DOD Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) noted the F-35 "operating and support cost" (O&S) at $1,000.5 billion (then year dollars). (See the last page.) There's the trillion dollars, but you also need to buy it first. According to the new GAO testimony, the acquisition cost is $397.1 billion (then year dollars). (Find the GAO testimony at http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf; see the table on page 4.)
Make it $1.4 trillion.
Both the O&S and acquisition costs will be going up.
As GAO noted, the $397 billion was an "interim" estimate, and it will be increased in the next SAR in April.
The O&S cost should increase as well. I had an interesting conversation with an Air Force cost expert. He quite literally smirked at the SAR estimate that F-35 costs would be just 20-30 percent more than F-16 flying costs. The F-35 is far, far more complex; that number is going no where but up. He expected significant increases in that estimate.
Anticipating those increased cost estimates assumes an honest system estimating costs for the F-35 in DOD. We do not have that. Management is trying to suppress the cost increases. Having the final word, they will surely do so. They know how to do this; it has happened in the past.
Whatever increased costs you see in upcoming DOD documents on the F-35, expect more in the future.
There is, of course, the option to reduce the buy, as they inevitably will. That will decrease the bottom line, of course, but also increase the unit cost.
It will also leave us with a second rate airplane. That has been addressed in many places: see http://blogs.star-telegram.com/files/wheeler-sprey-on-f-35-and-gates-as-in-janes.pdf, or http://blogs.star-telegram.com/files/wheeler-sprey-on-f-35-and-gates-as-in-janes.pdf, or http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=4587.
Note that none of these reviews of F-35 performance are new; it's an old story.
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4729&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm
Even weer een positief moment voor de F-35, weer een stapje verder in het test-traject.
Lockheed Martin F-35A Completes First Night Refueling Mission
FORT WORTH, Texas, March 26, 2012 – The first night refueling in the history of the Lockheed Martin F-35 program was completed Thursday at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Piloted by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter Vitt, AF-4, an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant, rendezvoused with an Air Force KC-135 tanker and successfully received fuel through the F-35's boom receptacle. Vitt's sortie lasted more than three hours. In addition to qualifying with the KC-135, the F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards AFB will also conduct night refueling tests with the KC-10.
Foto's :
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/photos/press_photos/2012/march/12J00166_08-medium.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_DybTfDpxo4/T3DT5X5BUFI/AAAAAAAAZUQ/0sUzMjI6i_0/s1600/7018677857_895c00c9c2_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/7018678655/in/photostream
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/march/120326ae_f35a-completes-night-refuel.html
As drones rise, a manned fighter falls
By Phil Radford
SYDNEY - The world's biggest international defense project, the United States-designed F-35 strike-fighter aircraft, was put on probation by international partners at a formal meeting held this month in Sydney, Australia.
Responding to the latest in a series of cost increases and delivery delays, representatives from the Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom have all threatened to pull out of the project unless the Pentagon and lead private contractor Lockheed Martin can deliver the fighter plane more quickly and cheaply.
The trouble started on February 13 when the US Department of Defense's Comptroller released detailed projections of future Pentagon spending which revealed cuts in planned US purchases
Dilbert
of the F-35 fighter as well as related cost increases in the fiscal period spanning 2013- 17.
The 2012 price of the US Air Force version of the F-35 aircraft is almost US$197 million, three times the plane's original projected cost. By postponing the ramp up to mass production, the Pentagon in effect confirmed that the F-35 will not be available in the near-term at a cost allies are willing to pay.
Within days, the Canadian government called an unprecedented meeting of F-35 partners at its embassy in Washington to organize a collective response. The aircraft is the most expensive procurement project on the defense budget books of most project participants. Together the eight countries had committed to purchase over 700 of the fighter planes.
Delivery delays, meanwhile, mean the countries' air forces will face yawning gaps in combat capability. Canada needs new aircraft by 2016, while Australia wanted its first 14 of the fighter planes by 2014. The United Kingdom desperately needs a naval version of the F-35 for its two 60,000 ton aircraft carriers due to enter service in 2016 and 2018.
Before the Sydney meeting, Canadian Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino underscored the allies' bottom line. "We have not as yet discounted the possibility of backing out of the program," he said, adding in case the point of the meeting was missed, "none of the partners have".
The plane's wider export prospects are also under threat. The F-35's first Asian customer, Japan, warned on February 29 that cost increases or delays might force Tokyo to cancel its contract for 42 aircraft. The multi-billion dollar deal was signed just three months previously.
More broadly, the US's ability to turn its pre-eminence in military technology into lucrative, long-term exports and diplomatic leverage is also at stake. Faced with cost increases, continued delays and technology risks, US strategic allies have started to investigate cheaper, more reliable alternatives, and there is little the cash-strapped US government can do to stop them.
Arm in arm
Back in 2001- 2, the allure of the F-35 "fifth-generation" fighter proved irresistible to many US allies. It would possess high resolution sensors and secure high-capacity data links so pilots could fight armed with an exceptional awareness of the situation around them, while "data fusion" features would make that information easy to comprehend. The plane's stealthy look would produce a tiny radar signature that increased survivability in combat situations.
Many air force chiefs, almost all of them ex-fast-jet pilots, pronounced the F-35 the best fighter of the future. Prospective customers were promised the F-35 would also be economical, with lower maintenance costs than existing aircraft.
For the US, inviting allies to collaborate on F-35 development looked like a neat way to cement its position at the apex of the global defense industry. The collaborative arrangement would help the US to defray development costs, increase export orders and ultimately make allied air forces more useful in US-led operations. It would also subtly make those air forces dependent on the US for support and upgrades because the US would retain the source code required to upgrade the software the plane needed to fly.
What hooked allies most apparently was the commercial opportunity. The Canadian government, for example, which joined the F-35 project in 2002, estimated that by 2010 its C$168 million development contribution had led to C$350 million of contracts from Lockheed Martin. This 2:1 return on investment boosted national capabilities in advanced composites and helped fund research laboratories and universities. (The US and Canadian dollars are currently at parity; all amounts here are in US dollars unless otherwise stated.)
With the US committing to purchasing 2,443 aircraft, plus 700 from the allies and perhaps another 2,000 in exports to non-partner countries, allies eyed a commercial bonanza that would simultaneously propel local technology firms into world-class players once full-scale production began.
Postponed profits
Flash forward 10 years, and the plane is still six years away from full-scale production. In its latest report, released last week, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified deficiencies in the plane's fifth-generation capabilities, including the helmet-mounted display which cannot "fuse" data.
More worrying is the backlog in software coding. The F-35 needs an estimated 24 million lines of code to become operational, including 9.5 million on-board the aircraft. This is six times as much software as on the F/A-18 Hornet, and three times more than the F-22. The GAO reports that "testing of the most complex software and advanced capabilities [is] still in the future," while only "four percent of the aircraft mission system for full combat capability has been verified".
Partly as a result, the flight tests are approximately five years behind schedule. A fully integrated F-35 won't now begin testing until 2015 at the earliest, coinciding with when allies had expected deliveries to have already commenced. Moreover, a Department of Defense (DOD) presentation that accompanied the release of budget figures shows that F-35 funding for testing will now continue up to 2018, which implies full-rate aircraft production will only ramp up at the end of the decade.
But what has the allies more trapped is the cost. Last month, the US DOD's fiscal year 2013 figures showed it will purchase 19 fighters for its air force this year at a unit cost of $197 million, nearly three times higher than the 2001 projected cost of $69 million per plane. This makes the F-35 hopelessly expensive compared to the only practical alternatives available on the international market: $67 million for an F/A-18 Super Hornet; $87-90 million for a Dassault Rafale; and approximately $110-120 million for a Eurofighter Typhoon. [1]
Currently, the Pentagon projects a decline in F-35 unit costs as production ramps up and economies of scale kick in: $171 million for each fighter next year, $140 million the year after, and $121 million in 2016, when it plans to buy 70 aircraft.
But over the last three years, a cash-strapped Department of Defense has repeatedly cut the number of planes it plans to purchase over the forthcoming five-year period in order to reduce costs; by 246 planes in 2010 and a further 179 in January this year. It will now purchase a quarter of the planes originally planned up to 2017. Each cut has precipitated a price increase by Lockheed Martin, which in turn has encouraged the Pentagon to reduce immediate orders.
The date at which the plane becomes economical, meanwhile, recedes into the future. The F-35 was easily the biggest casualty in the US defense budget announced last month, suffering $15.1 billion of cuts out of total defense program reductions of $97 billion.
Besides funding constraints, the budget plan specifically cited "changing departmental priorities" as a reason for the cuts, which
Dilbert
indicates waning support for F-35 in the Pentagon, while interest and investment in unmanned drones and cyber warfare builds. The Pentagon has few reasons to rush into full-scale F-35 production while costs remain high and other fighter production lines remain open - and the allies know know this.
Even if the Pentagon sticks to its promises, the price may not drop by much. In its March 20 report, the GAO repeated an earlier ominous warning, that "... the program has not yet demonstrated ... manufacturing processes capable of efficient production". That means the GAO does not believe that Lockheed Martin's projected economies of scale are based in fact. Statistical analysis of the five-year costs submitted to the GAO in 2011 reveal a very modest correlation between increases in aircraft orders and reductions in unit costs. Three-year figures presented by the Pentagon this February reveal no correlation at all. [2]
The most thorough independent analysis comes from Canada, where the federal government's disinclination to reveal data on F-35 costs helped precipitate a general election last May. There, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated the likely cost at C$148-C$163 million before the latest Pentagon cuts. This compares to the C$75 million price tag that the Canadian government is now publically committed.
Since the allies cannot influence the basic dynamics of the F-35 program, their only reaction to date has been to delay orders and hope for the best. The UK, panicking over which version will prove less costly and embarrassing for its carriers, has reduced its 138-plane order to an unspecified number.
In March 2011, Turkey put its 100-plane order on hold indefinitely, apparently in response to a US refusal to share source codes. After learning of the cost increases, the Netherlands postponed making a definite order until 2014, while on February 9 Italy's newfound fiscal sobriety saw projected orders drop from 131 to 90.
The eject-seat option is for allies to write off their development costs and open their fighter procurements to an open competition, pitting the F-35 against the Typhoon, Rafale and Super Hornet. This is what the Canadian opposition parties have pledged to do, even though it means facing down two powerful constituents: top air force officers who can marshal persuasive facts behind professional opinions; and domestic companies, such as Australia's Quickstep, who have invested in large plant expansions in anticipation of multi-billion dollar contracts related to the F-35.
Revolution in time
If the allies can keep older aircraft in the skies a few more years and avoid making hard commitments, progress may yet resolve their dilemma. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the unmanned aerial systems (UAS) of which they form a part are already displacing manned jets from reconnaissance and some strike roles.
According to The Economist (October 2011), unmanned American UAS now fly more hours than manned strike aircraft, and more US pilots are being trained to fly them than their manned equivalents.
Uncomfortably for F-35 proponents, UAS already combine all the elements of fifth-generation fighters but in a more economical form. BAE System's Taranis and Northrop Grumman's X-47 are highly stealthy, and the former is experimenting with drones that have no moveable surfaces at all, further reducing radar signatures.
UAS data fusion, meanwhile, happens on the ground among teams of pilots and operators who can specialize in specific flying, monitoring and combat functions. Without pilots, or the equipment they need to fight, breathe, eject, navigate, or fight, UAVs are smaller, lighter and cheaper. And despite the professional affinity for manned flight, combat pilots may soon concede the skies.
UAVs will be fought centrally from ground-based or ship-situated operations centers, where ground and air-space information is filtered, honed and acted upon by specialized teams to create tactical advantages that airborne pilots cannot individually match or master. Pilots will soon ponder how many coordinated, missile-armed UAVs to have in the sky around them.
What will likely grab politicians' interest is the radically shorter development cycle for UAS, such that new ideas fly in months not decades. Modular approaches to UAV construction together with miniaturized sensor suites will allow aerospace companies to quickly mix and match new UAV platforms with novel weapons and sensors.
New capabilities will be genuinely new. Procurement staff will not find themselves hostage to long, risky development programs; they can simply tell companies to experiment wildly with new combinations, fight competitive procurement battles in real, aerial dogfights, and only then spend money on the winners.
Historically, militaries do not abandon orthodox technology until a decisive engagement proves a new point. But without fail the determining factor is always cost. During World War II, expensive battleships were overwhelmed by swarms of cheap aircraft carrying cheap bombs or torpedos. In exactly the same way, the F-35 will be overwhelmed by cheap drones carrying cheap missiles, before or after it becomes operational.
If the allies can hold their nerve, the F-35's troubles and the Pentagon's delays may yet save them from making the most expensive mistake of their own defense forces' lives.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC28Dj04.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/03/2012 | 07:57 uur
De hoogste tijd voor een positief stuk rondom de JSF, wat het e.e.a. in perspectief plaatst!
F-35 Fighter Costs: Six Ways To Make A Bargain Seem Unaffordable
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/03/26/f-35-fighter-costs-six-ways-to-make-a-bargain-seem-unaffordable/3/
'Woeessshhh, Aaaahhhh.' ;D Jurrien die de plank weer finaal mis slaat. (Net als vorige week, waarbij je volkomen onterechte kritiek leverde op de levensduurkosten van de Gripen)
Beste man, Loren Thompson is een brood schrijver voor ... LockheedMartin ;)
Gripen NG
March 27, 2012: The Swedish Air Force wants to buy at least 60 Gripen NG (Next Generation) fighters. The NG model would be heavier (16 tons) have better electronics, heavier payload (over four tons) and be a two seater better able to handle ground attack and electronic warfare duties. The Swedish Air Force already has 120 Gripens in service and the prospect of more defense budget cuts makes the purchase of 60 Gripen NGs (at a total cost of nearly $5 billion) difficult to carry out. But the Gripen NG would have good export prospects, and that may be the deciding factor in getting the NG going via some sales to the Swedish Air Force.
The Gripen has already undergone one major enhancement, to the JAS 39C model. Improvements included inflight refueling, better electronics and improved ground attack capability. The C model was also compliant with NATO standards for warplanes. This was necessary for export sales. There was also a two seat D model for training.
The 14 ton JAS-39C is roughly comparable to the latest versions of the F-16. The Gripen is small but can carry up to 3.6 tons of weapons. With the increasing use of smart bombs this is adequate. Often regarded as an also-ran in the current crop of "modern jet fighters," the Swedish Gripen is proving to be more competition than the major players (the F-16, F-18, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, MiG-29, and Su-27) expected. Put simply, Gripen does a lot of little but important things right and costs about half as much (at about $35 million each) as its major competitors. In effect, Gripen provides the ruggedness and low cost of Russian aircraft with the high quality and reliability of Western aircraft. For many nations this is an appealing combination. The Gripen is easy to use (both for pilots and ground crews) and capable of doing all jet fighter jobs (air defense, ground support, and reconnaissance) well enough.
The aircraft entered active service in 1997 and has had an uphill battle getting export sales. Sweden does not have the diplomatic clout of its major competitors, so they have to push quality and service. Swedish warplanes and products in general have an excellent reputation in both categories. Nevertheless, the Gripen is still expected to lose out on a lot of sales simply because politics took precedence over performance.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20120327.aspx
Citaat van: Poleme op 27/03/2012 | 12:38 uur
'Woeessshhh, Aaaahhhh.' ;D Jurrien die de plank weer finaal mis slaat. (Net als vorige week, waarbij je volkomen onterechte kritiek leverde op de levensduurkosten van de Gripen)
Beste man, Loren Thompson is een brood schrijver voor ... LockheedMartin ;)
In een open discussie zie je wel eens iets over het hoofd. :'(
De levensduurkosten van de SGNG zullen nog moeten blijken, ik kan alleen uitgaan van de open source berichten waarin gesteld wordt dat de Zweden kiezen voor de NG tot rond 2040.
Ik kan alleen de vergelijking maken van A naar C variant en dit in een tijdpad plaatsen aangevuld met met hele vage discussie rond om de varvanging van de huidige Europese generatie fighers rond 2040.
Er zijn oogkleppen voor de JSF maar ook de Gripen wordt op een voetstuk geplaatst.
Waarbij ik zondermeer per direct zou willen tekenen voor minimaal 68 Gripen NG, maar ook hier vrees ik het ergste, dat laatste is natuurlijk geen wetenschap, maar zodra de Klu kenbaar zou maken dat 36 - 54 JSF's voldoende zou zijn dan is de politiek de eerste die roept dat ze het dan ook met een zelfde aantal kunnen doen van welk willekeurige type dan ook.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/03/2012 | 12:43 uur
Gripen NG
purchase of 60 Gripen NGs at a total cost of nearly $5 billion
$ 5 billion USDollar = $ 5 miljard Amerikaanse Dollars = € 3,8 miljard Euro .... voor 60 Gripen NG
Aankoop prijs Gripen NG : € 63,33 miljoen per toestel
Nederland met budget van € 4,4 miljard Euro kan hiermee 69 toestellen aankopen.
Citaat van: Harald op 27/03/2012 | 13:14 uur
Nederland met budget van € 4,4 miljard Euro kan hiermee 69 toestellen aankopen.
Vandaag tekenen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/03/2012 | 12:54 uur
Waarbij ik zondermeer per direct zou willen tekenen voor minimaal 68 Gripen NG, maar ook hier vrees ik het ergste, dat laatste is natuurlijk geen wetenschap, maar zodra de Klu kenbaar zou maken dat 36 - 54 JSF's voldoende zou zijn dan is de politiek de eerste die roept dat ze het dan ook met een zelfde aantal kunnen doen van welk willekeurige type dan ook.
Dat weet je niet. In Zwitserland geven ze ook aan 22 Gripens NG te willen kopen terwijl later bleek dat voor dat bedrag er 15 Rafale's of Typhoons gekocht zouden worden. Men kan de kaart nog altijd spelen dat kwantiteit een kwaliteit op zichzelf is.
Citaat van: Chrisis op 27/03/2012 | 13:50 uur
Dat weet je niet. In Zwitserland geven ze ook aan 22 Gripens NG te willen kopen terwijl later bleek dat voor dat bedrag er 15 Rafale's of Typhoons gekocht zouden worden. Men kan de kaart nog altijd spelen dat kwantiteit een kwaliteit op zichzelf is.
Ik laat me graag positief verrassen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 27/03/2012 | 13:17 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 27/03/2012 | 13:14 uur
Nederland met budget van € 4,4 miljard Euro kan hiermee 69 toestellen aankopen.
Vandaag tekenen.
Tja .... wat zou je doen als de keuze is :
69 stuks Gripen NG (€ 63,33 miljoen / stuk) ... of .....
57 stuks F-15SE (€ 76 miljoen / stuk) ... of ...
49 stuks Rafale (€ 90 miljoen / stuk)
ik neig naar de keuze/aankoop van 57 stuks F-15SE, ga dus voor gedeeltelijke kwantiteit met kwaliteit.
Citaat van: Harald op 27/03/2012 | 14:16 uur
Tja .... wat zou je doen als de keuze is :
69 stuks Gripen NG (€ 63,33 miljoen / stuk) ... of .....
57 stuks F-15SE (€ 76 miljoen / stuk) ... of ...
49 stuks Rafale (€ 90 miljoen / stuk)
ik neig naar de keuze/aankoop van 57 stuks F-15SE, ga dus voor gedeeltelijke kwantiteit met kwaliteit.
Helaas is de keuze niet aan ons. Zou ik de keuze mogen maken uit dit lijstje, dan werd het bij mij ook, zonder twijfel, de Amerikaan.
Hierbij zou ik de hogere exploitatiekosten voor lief nemen.
Doe dan de F15SE maar, waarom is iedereen zo lyrisch over de Gripen NG, heeft dat ding zichzelf al bewezen ?
Zo nieuw is dat ding toch ook, niet, gewoon een geüpgrade Gripen....
EF ziet ik helemaal niet als kandidaat voor de vervanging van de F-16, ook al hebben omliggende landen deze aangeschaft.
EF is in aankoop te duur en exploitatie ook, dit is voor BV Nederland (defensie) helemaal niet op te brengen
Citaat van: dudge op 27/03/2012 | 14:32 uur
Bij mij dus duidelijk niet. Simpelweg omdat ik van mening ben dat we niet teveel unilateraal moeten denken. Samenwerken is gewoon belangrijk, en dat moeten we niet frustreren door een handjevol unieke jagers te kopen. De bondgenoten die het dichtst bij zitten en waar we makkelijk mee kunnen samenwerken, hebben in mijn ogen dus ook invloed. En dat laat ons een keus tussen 4 of 9 als je de varianten telt. Te weten, Gripen, EF, Rafale en F35. Als de f18 meer voet aan de grond krijgt kan dat op termijn ook een optie worden.
En dan kunnen we wel zeggen van ja, maar de israëli's, amerikanen en koreanen vliegen ook in de f15, het zijn landen vrij ver weg in verschillende opzichten, en toekomstige vergaande samenwerkingsverbanden bieden daar gewoon minder opties.
Met het unilateraal argument, waarbij samenwerkingen met bondgenoten in de buurt een pré, wens of vereiste is help je dus je eigen lijst een heel eind naar de eeuwige jachtvelden:
Rafale; (vooralsnog alleen het eigenzinnige Frankrijk)
Gripen NG; (vooralsnog alleen Zwitserland en Zweeden, beide neutraal)
F18E (vooralnog geen)
Volgens jouw redenatie blijven er dan 2 reëele opties over: EF en F35
TYT: Trillion-Dollar Jet Wasting Your Tax $
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101718484
European defence industry nearing crisis, report warns
PrintBy: Craig Hoyle London 05:10 26 Mar 2012 Source: flightglobal.com
Europe's ability to develop next-generation combat aircraft has been dangerously eroded, and will reach "a point of no return" unless collaborative funding decisions are made soon, a new industry study warns.
Commissioned by the European Defence Agency (EDA), the Future Air Systems for Europe (FAS4Europe) group study says "the situation for future air systems is severe, with some important industrial capabilities and technologies already at risk".
Without additional investment and a joint strategy, the situation "will soon become critical", it says, identifying the "development of future combat aircraft (manned and unmanned) and attack helicopters" as being at risk.
"Europe's military aeronautics industry remains competitive, however, today's position is based on past investment," the report says. "Many of the capabilities at risk will be very costly, in both time and money, to adequately recover if lost." It warns that in some cases industry will be unable to meet EDA member state requirements by as soon as 2020.
"The timescales and costs associated with advanced military aviation suggest the need for European Union member states to agree a coordinated plan, but no plan exists," the FAS4Europe partners say. "Short-term pragmatic decisions need to be balanced with a long-term strategy and plan for sustaining sovereign military capabilities."
They also point to the strong investments being made by China, Russia and the USA, and by emerging defence and industrial powers Brazil, India, South Korea and Turkey as another reason for action.
Recommendations of the report include a three-phased strategy. To run between 2012 and 2017, the first of these would involve projects to "sustain industrial capabilities, mature technologies and prepare cooperation and business models, as well as procurement processes for common European programmes". Member states should then fund substantial projects, including future air system demonstrator programmes, it suggests.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/03/2012 | 10:31 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 26/03/2012 | 09:25 uur
Stealth is niet meer het toverwoord.
Kortom... we hebben behoeft aan een snelle en wendbare multirole kist met veel capaciteit... en wat hou je dan over..... ehhh F15SE
Tientallen jaren geleden ging de KLu op zoek naar Elektronische Tegen Maatregelen (ECM) voor haar '104' vloot. Een Italiaanse firma bood toen een radar stoorzender aan. Volgens hen hoefde je dit apparaat maar aan te zetten en je had nergens meer last van.
Helaas, werkt het zo niet in de praktijk. Het gaat om een mix van ontwijkende manouevres; storen d.m.v. zenders, chaff (vezelmatriaal bedekt met een laagje aluminium en flares (fakkels) en een zekere mate van steelsheid (stealth).
De F-104 was van nature al een steelse kist en de NF-5A had ook een kleine (frontale) radardoorsnede.
De F-16AM kan beladen met slechts 2 a 4 Sidewinders of AIM-120's die respectievelijk 86 en 152 kg wegen met maximaal 9G, of te wel 9x de zwaartekracht, de bocht om. Hang je een 1.136 liter peut tank onder de romp, dan loopt dit al terug tot maximaal 7G.
Hangen er 1.400 liter tanks en /of 2.000 ponders onder de vleugels dan kan men nog maximaal met 5,5G manouevreren.
De wendbaarheid van de F-35A is vergelijkbaar met van die van de F-18C Hornet. Maar de F-35A LightningII kan met 2 2.000 ponders en 2 AIM-120 luchtdoelraketten wel met 9G de bocht om!
De LightningII haalt een maximale snelheid van Mach 1,6 volgens de officiëlle cijfers, de F-16A doet maximaal Mach 1,95.
Wat een slak of een slome schildpad zeg die F-35A. Maar de F-35A kruist met 2 2.000 ponders en 2 AIM-120's wel 100 km/u sneller dan de F-16!
Zodra aan elke romp zijkant van de F-15E Conformele Fuel Tanks worden 'geplakt' + ophangpunten met wapens en extra tanks. Dan gaan de prestaties van deze kist aardig achteruit. In de F-15SE wordt dit weer voor een deel gecompenseerd door de wapens ook in deze CFT's onder te brengen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 27/03/2012 | 18:18 uur
European defence industry nearing crisis, report warns
PrintBy: Craig Hoyle London 05:10 26 Mar 2012 Source: flightglobal.com
Europe's ability to develop next-generation combat aircraft has been dangerously eroded, and will reach "a point of no return" unless collaborative funding decisions are made soon, a new industry study warns.
Op deze "waarschuwing" kon je wachten en is ook logisch kijkend naar de (Europese) ontwikkeltrajecten van de huidige generatie Euro-canards. In het publieke domein is bij mijn beste weten nog niets verder bekend dan het streven naar streven om te komen tot....de intentie etc.
Geen van de fabrikanten lijkt een (bemande) opvolger op de agenda te hebben staan (al is er wel een Zweeds schaal model voor een eenmototig stealth fighter, mogelijk als aanvulling of opvolging van Gripen)
Sprake van multilatere (Europese) samenwerking om om te komen tot een gezamelijke opvolger (misschien in een één en twee motorige variant) van de huidige Euro-canards lijkt vooralsnog ver weg. (maar ik laat me graag door insider kennis verrassen!)
De angst om de boot te missen is in mijn ogen meer dan gerechtvaardigd, kijk naar landen als India, Brazlië, Japan, Korea, etc., landen die nu kiezen voor een Amerikaans of Europees product om ze vervolgens ter leering in het thuisland zelf te bouwen om daarna wellicht zelfstandig te ontwikkelen, te bouwen en te exporteren.
De export koek voor Europa wordt steeds kleiner en als "we" niet uit kijken dan kunnen we hooguit (naast onbemand) nog iets produceren voor de thuis markt, misschien richting het midden oosten en de kleine landen in de wereld die zich geen eigen industrie kunnen veroorloven waar vervolgens de gehele wereld als een bok op de haverkist bovenop zit.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 25/03/2012 | 01:44 uur
Citaat van: Ace1 op 25/03/2012 | 01:32 uur
Jurrien dat ben ik niet met je eens op het gebied van vliegtuigmotoren is het westen de meerderen van Rusland, daar is men de mindere mee.
Hier heb ik onvoldoende inzicht in, maar als ik de prestaties zie van de nieuwe generatie Russische kisten in wendbaarheid en snelheid dan doen ze toch blijkbaar iets goeds.
Vrijwel alle huidige westerse kisten leggen het momenteel af (volgens de publieke informatie) tegen een SU35 in performance (m.u.v. de F22 en wellicht de F15 familie of de EF in een dog-fight scenario)
Ach, voor de Su-27-35 familie, PAK-FA en Chinese F-20 ben ik niet bang. Ik ben banger voor de dreiging die uitgaat van double digit SAM raketten met hun netwerkcentrische C4I systemen. Die worden door veel meer landen aangeschaft. Alle Euro-Canards, Amerikaanse 'teen fighters' en F-35A zijn adequate tegenvoeters van deze jachtvliegtuigen. Echter tegen de double digit SAM systemen zijn deze Westerse jachtvliegtuigen als verouderd te beschouwen!
Steelsheid werkt hier nu al nauwelijks meer tegen. Er is een grote stap voorwaarts nodig qua elektronische oorlogsvoering (EOV) vaardigheden.
Om deze (grondgebonden) dreiging economisch te neutraliseren moeten we de EOV uit gaan voeren vanuit een vloot kleine UAV's die deze double digit SAM's afleid, misleid of met behulp van Elektro Magnetische Puls / High Power Microgolf wapens stoort of vernietigd. En een volgende generatie jachtvliegtuigen moet net als de F-22A in staat moeten zijn om supersonisch te kruisen (supercruise).
Eigen investering in een fatsoenlijk luchtverdedigingsnetwerk lijkt mij ook geen overbodige luxe.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 27/03/2012 | 23:12 uur
Eigen investering in een fatsoenlijk luchtverdedigingsnetwerk lijkt mij ook geen overbodige luxe.
+1
Niemand zit te wachten op een fait accompli (al vindt de politiek dat we dit het komende millennium niet nodig zullen hebben... ik wil ook zo'n kristallenbol)
Ik denk dan niet alleen aan nieuwe jachtvliegtuigen, maar ook aan grondgebonden luchtverdediging (dat naar mijn mening op dit moment ontoereikend is), langeafstands radars (ground master 400) en AEW (erieye).
EADS backtracks on local production offer
By Lee Tae-hoon
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) will have no choice but to drop its pledge to allow the building of multi-role combat jets under license here should it win the bid to supply the aircraft to the Korean Air Force, industry sources said Wednesday.
The consortium proposed in June last year to have the final assembly line in Korea to allow it assembly 50 of 60 deliveries.
It also promised to allow local manufacturers here to produce and supply parts for the last batch of 26 advanced jets and reaffirmed its stance in August last year in an official letter to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA).
"DAPA has decided to purchase finished products without giving favors or incentives to the one offering licensed production," an industry source said asking for anonymity. "How can EADS offer to allow Korea to build its fighters under license, when the country clearly demands finished products?"
EADS is currently competing with two U.S. defense giants ― Lockheed Martin and Boeing ― for Korea's fighter jet procurement project aimed at purchasing 60 advanced jets at 8.29 trillion won ($7.26 billion).
EADS wants to sell the Eurofighter Typhoons to replace Korea's aging F-4 and F-5 jets in a race, code named the FX-III, against Lockheed Martin's F-35, the most stealthy aircraft on the market, and Boeing with the F-15 Silent Eagle, a semi-stealth fighter under development.
When asked whether EADS will abide by its earlier promise of licensed production, Mariano Barrena, head of the Eurofighteer campaign in Korea and other EADS officials could not give a direct answer.
Instead of giving details of the proposal, Barrena replied that EADS is willing to put together a "comprehensive industrial participation proposal in which final assembly, components and parts manufacturing including high-tech equipment will be offered."
He also declined to comment on media reports that his company will likely walk away from its promise of investing 20 percent of the cost for a Korea-initiated project to develop a new multirole fighter, named KF-X.
"We will include attractive and compelling means of cooperation in KF-X," Barrena said, refusing to answer the question.
Sources say EADS will likely backtrack on some of its earlier pledges as DAPA made it clear that no substantial incentive will be given in the FX-III race to a company committed to shouldering the financial burden of the KF-X project and providing a final assembly line.
According to a 2011 report by Korea National Defense University, EADS expressed its intent to invest up to 20 percent or $1 billion into the KF-X program.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/03/116_107895.html
Norway May Speed F-35 Buy
Mar. 23, 2012 - 12:21PM
By MARCUS WEISGERBER
Norway is considering speeding up buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Oslo's Ministry of Defense has announced.
In a white paper posted on the ministry's website on March 23, Norway reaffirms its plans to purchase 52 stealthy jets that will replace the Royal Norwegian Air Force's F-16 fighters.
Oslo may move up procurement of its initial training aircraft from 2016 to 2015, according to a statement about the white paper. The government is also looking at moving up procurement of its operational F-35 aircraft.
"A new start date of 2017 is being considered while the final procurement year may be extended to 2023 or 2024," the statement notes.
Norway's parliament must approve the aircraft buys each year.
"We remain confident that the F-35 represents the best capability for the best value possible," Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide said in the statement. "The purpose of the adjusted procurement plan is to give the Norwegian Government greater financial freedom of maneuver during the years of the main procurement by spreading out the cost more evenly. We believe this new schedule better balances this concern with the introduction of a vital new capability to the Norwegian Armed Forces."
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120323/DEFREG01/303230003/Norway-May-Speed-F-35-Buy?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
March, 28, 2012
Develop F-35 alternatives or face consequences
Canada does not have several years to conduct an exhaustive fighter aircraft competition, but we can ask India for relevant data, send a team of pilots and flight engineers to the British and French training programs, as well as delve further into the familiar Super Hornet.
By Mark M. Miller
Published Mar 28, 2012 5:14 PM View story Email Comments To the Editor
Lockheed Martin photoF-35 night refueling on March 22 in California.With the ongoing cost escalations and program delays, combined with a likely scathing report upcoming from the Auditor General, the federal Conservatives are finally toning down their cheerleading for the Joint Strike Fighter.
After years of spouting verbatim from Lockheed Martin's glossy F-35 sales brochure, we are finally seeing cracks in Tory support for the very troubled stealth fighter project. A well-structured Plan B must be researched and initiated to ensure our future sovereignty.
Many critics have questioned the viability of a single-engine strike aircraft that has a limited range, no ability to supercruise, does not work well from short landing strips, and might be an overly-complex hangar queen, as the sole fighter aircraft for the RCAF.
As more nations develop stealth fighters, then the use of radar as the main target acquisition device will be taken over by infrared, wake tracking, electro-optics, and radio/electronic chatter detection – thereby sidestepping radar stealth features – in short order.
Canada is about the last of the international partners to indicate that the procurement process may need adjusting; and noting that options need to be reviewed. Britain is pushing back their acquisition decisions until at least 2015, the Americans have delayed buying 179 or more units, and the other partners are dithering as well.
Our participation in the JSF program has been at a third tier level, with an investment of under 300 million towards research and development, with the intent of having Canadian companies being able to bid for lucrative fabrication and components contracts. This aircraft program has been developed towards US military requirements, with some British input, but definitely not for defending our vast airspace that covers three oceans and a desolate arctic region.
If the F-35's many technical problems are finally resolved and it becomes a proven combat-capable aircraft, then it might be a valuable first-day-of-war weapons platform that can take out an enemy's air defence capabilities and decimate their command, control and communications infrastructure.
But does that meet Canada's military doctrine? Direct threats to Canada are likely to be limited in scope, but may require quick reaction from our air force, and over great distances.
The older brother to the F-35 is Lockheed's F-22 Raptor, which is seen as the best air supremacy allied fighter, but has operational troubles requiring many maintenance hours per flight time, and is not exportable in any case.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is considered the next best modern and upgradable air superiority fighter, and the manufacturing consortium is seeking partners that would be fully involved (unlike American ventures) in production and ongoing development, with a complete transfer of technology.
The Dassault Rafale, chosen by India as its medium fighter, is very similar, but is more of a French closed shop.
An obvious replacement option for the CF-18 is its descendant, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, especially in conjunction with the electronic warfare variant, the Boeing EA-18G Growler. But in doing so, we dedicate ourselves to another jet that has a shortish range and does not have the performance envelope of a true superiority fighter.
Canada does not have several years to conduct an exhaustive fighter aircraft competition, but we can ask India for relevant data from their extensive competition, send a team of pilots and flight engineers to the British and French training programs to check out their warbirds, as well as delve further into the familiar Super Hornet.
Boeing has proposed a new stealthy F-15SE Silent Eagle variant that may be worth investigation, but that project will need several years to yield a proven aircraft, and it will be costly, like all previous Eagles.
From a rational perspective, the JSF program (if it survives) might produce a cost-effective fighter-bomber that Canada can make use of, somewhere in the mid 2020's, but at a minimum we need a proven air superiority capability before the CF-18s are retired.
This may cause us to have two aircraft types over the coming decades, and this may be the best outcome for the RCAF, who understand that 65 (somewhat) multi-role fighters will not meet all of our responsibilities and obligations.
Fingers are furiously wagging between DND, procurement bureaucrats, and senior government leaders, but in truth a long-winded blame-game will not help us out of the mess we are in; a new process is in order.
A modern twin-engine air supremacy fighter that can operate from short strips in our Arctic, and can quickly extend to engage threats beyond our coasts, are the major requirements, as well as being interoperable with, but not subservient to, our allies.
As was done in India, the military and the bureaucrats need to be involved in the general evaluation process. But when the two finalists are confirmed, it comes down to a run-off for operational suitability, acquisition price, life-time operational costs, technology transfer, and dedicated industrial benefits to Canada.
The four-nation consortium (Britain, Germany, Italy, and Spain) that has developed the Typhoon, of which several hundred have been ordered or built, may well be the forerunner among potential competitors for an aircraft that would meet our medium-term air force needs, and provide the greatest boost to our aerospace research and development, and industrial growth.
This may also prove true for Japan, when they have to re-think the JSF. This could create acquisition and production synergies between our two nations; potentially making for a consortium of several allied nations, thereby reducing costs, and increasing effectiveness.
Military expenditures for national defence are seen by some as a waste of funds that could be directed to the health and welfare industries, but if you cannot defend something that is coveted by others, it may be taken away; and few nations, including the United States, agree with our claims in the Arctic.
If Canada does not prepare to defend its own interests, and others have to step in, then we will pay in other ways.
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/develop_f35_alternatives_or_face_consequences_03-28-2012
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 28/03/2012 | 23:48 uur
March, 28, 2012
Develop F-35 alternatives or face consequences
In Canada begint het F35 dossier steeds meer op "onze" forum discussie te lijken.
First RAAF JSFs to cost $130m each
Updated: 04:51, Friday March 30, 2012
Australia can expect to pay about $130 million each for its first two Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft and an average of about $85 million if it opts to buy 100.
These increased cost figures come in the US Defence Department's selected acquisition report for 2011 (SAR11) presented to Congress on Thursday.
The report is an update on major US defence programs including the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF.
Despite the apparent price hikes, the Australian Defence Force is confident final prices will be lower because the most recent fixed-price incentive contract was significantly below the SAR10 cost estimate.
Australia's first two aircraft will be produced in a later contract lot.
SAR11 shows an increase in costs owing to a number of factors, although it is not the substantial blowout tipped by some commentators.
One change relates to accounting practice, with JSF costs now based on 2012 dollars rather than the 2002 dollars used over the past decade. Taking into account inflation, that indicates an apparent cost increase of some 25 per cent.
Real cost increases apparently stem from decisions by the US and other nations to defer purchase of 242 aircraft until later in the program. That has the effect of delaying the move to high-rate production when greater efficiencies drive costs down.
As well, Lockheed Martin faces unspecified additional costs to rework existing aircraft to overcome faults discovered during the test program, an issue referred to as concurrency.
Australia is considering acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft but has so far contracted to buy just 14. A decision on the next tranche of 58 will come next year.
JSF has faced steady criticism that it will be late, expensive and won't deliver the promised level of capability.
For Australia, SAR11 indicates Australia's first two aircraft, scheduled for delivery in the US from 2014, will cost about A$130 million, based on 2012 prices and a US1.03 exchange rate.
Each of the first 14 aircraft will average about A$110, in line with previous defence estimates.
Across the entire program of 100 aircraft, Australia can expect to pay an average of $85 million each, compared with a $75 million figure cited in 2008 and based on the less favourable US$0.92 exchange rate.
Because JSF development will continue for at least the next four years and the start of full rate production has been pushed out to 2019, definitive JSF costs remain elusive.
In Canberra last week, JSF program head Tom Burbage said Australia could still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) with early production aircraft costing more and later aircraft less.
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=734389&vId=
US sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion
29 March 2012 / REUTERS , WASHINGTON
The US government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters.
The Pentagon's latest, staggering estimate of the lifetime cost of the F-35 -- its most expensive weapons program -- is up from about $1 trillion a year ago, and includes inflation. While inflation accounts for more than one-third of the projected F-35 operating costs, military officials and industry executives were quick to point out that it is nearly impossible to predict inflation over the next half-century. They also argue that no other weapons program's costs have been calculated over such a long period, and that even shorter-term cost projections for other aircraft do not include the cost of modernization programs and upgrades. The new cost estimate reflects the Pentagon's proposal to postpone orders for 179 planes for five years, a move that US official say will save $15.1 billion through 2017, and should avert costly retrofits if further problems arise during testing of the new fighter, which is only about 20 percent complete. The Pentagon still plans to buy 2,443 of the new radar-evading, supersonic warplanes, plus 14 development aircraft, in the coming decades, although Air Force Secretary Michael Donley last week warned that further technical problems or cost increases could eat away at those numbers. The new estimate, based on calculations made by the Cost Assessment Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, includes operating and maintenance costs of $1.11 trillion, including inflation, and development and procurement costs of $332 billion. The Government Accountability Office last week projected it would cost $397 billion to develop and buy the planes, up from its earlier forecast of $382 billion. The Pentagon office that runs the F-35 program office has a lower estimate for lifetime costs, although it is still around $1 trillion, according to two sources familiar with the estimates. Both industry and government have put a huge emphasis on reducing operating costs and keeping the plane affordable. The new estimates are part of a revised F-35 baseline dated March 26 that will be sent to Congress on Thursday.
Average unit cost $135 mln
The new baseline forecasts the average cost of the F-35 fighter, including research and development (R&D) and inflation, at $135 million per plane, plus an additional $26 million for the F135 engine built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp. In 2012 dollars, the average cost of each single-seat, single-engine plane, including R&D, would be $112.5 million, plus $22 million for the engine. This is the first year that the government has separated out the cost of the plane and the engine, and comparison figures were not immediately available. Lockheed Martin has said the average cost of the plane will be around $65 million to $70 million, based on 2010 dollars. Lockheed Martin declined comment on the new estimate, saying it had not yet received the Pentagon's latest report. Lockheed spokesman Joe LaMarca said the company still believed the new fighter jet would cost the same or less to operate and maintain than the seven legacy warplanes it will replace, while offering far greater capabilities.
Defense analyst Loren Thompson said three quarters of the cost increases on the F-35 program were linked to government changes in the scope of the program, and the way it was estimating costs. For instance, he said, the Pentagon initially planned to station the plane at 33 bases, but later changed the number to 49. It initially calculated operating costs over 30 years, but then chose a longer timeframe of 50 years, he said. "The program costs appear to be rising much faster than they actually are because the government keeps changing how it calculates things," Thompson said. The Pentagon's proposal to postpone buying 179 planes for five years added $60 billion to the operations and support cost of the program, since those planes will now be delivered in later years when inflation is higher. The push also added two years to the duration of the program, according to an internal Lockheed calculation obtained by Reuters. But Winslow Wheeler, a critic of the program, predicts cost growth on the program will be even greater than estimated by the Pentagon, given the complexity of the F-35 fighter. Lockheed is developing three variants of the new plane for the US military and eight partner countries: Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands. They now plan to buy a combined total of 697 planes, down from 730 in the previous Pentagon estimate.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-275809-us-sees-lifetime-cost-of-f-35-fighter-at-145-trillion.html
Boeing Lobbies for $2 Billion in Jets as Lockheed Delayed
By Roxana Tiron - Mar 29, 2012 6:00 AM GMT+0200
.
Boeing Co. (BA) is pressing U.S. lawmakers to back production of as many as 37 additional Super Hornet fighter jets valued at about $2.5 billion, as the Pentagon delays Lockheed Martin Corp.'s new F-35.
Boeing is lobbying for a $60 million increase in the Navy's fiscal 2013 budget for advance purchases of materials to keep building F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets beyond 2015. The money would avert a shutdown of the fighter's assembly line and may help reduce a shortage in jets the Navy needs, according to a document the company distributed on Capitol Hill.
The Navy's program for the Super Hornet, the most modern version of the aircraft carrier-based F/A-18, calls for 565 aircraft. Photo: Park Ji-Hwan/AFP/Getty Images
.
Current Navy plans call for completing funding for the Super Hornet program in 2014, with deliveries of planes continuing through 2015. Boeing's supporters in Congress are seizing on budgetary and production delays for Lockheed (LMT) Martin's new F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter, as a rationale for buying more Super Hornets.
Adding Super Hornets would be "a bargain to the Navy," said Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, where Boeing builds the Super Hornet in its St. Louis plant.
"We need the jets on the carriers," McCaskill, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview. "Obviously it is much less expensive than the JSF, and the JSF is way behind."
The Super Hornet program supports 100,000 direct and indirect jobs and has 1,900 suppliers across the U.S., according to Boeing's document circulating on Capitol Hill. Among suppliers are Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), which makes the aft and center fuselage; General Electric Co., which makes the engines; and Raytheon Co. (RTN), which makes the radar.
F-35 Versions
Chicago-based Boeing, the world's largest aerospace company, has fought to remain a producer of U.S. military tactical aircraft alongside Lockheed Martin. Bethesda, Maryland- based Lockheed, the world's largest defense contractor, is building versions of the F-35, the Pentagon's costliest program, for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
In February, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta proposed delaying the purchase of 179 F-35s beyond 2017 to save $15.1 billion as the Pentagon seeks to cut $487 billion from its budget over the next decade. The first 63 F-35 fighters are exceeding their combined target cost by $1 billion, and aircraft deliveries are on average more than a year late, according to the Government Accountability Office. Full-rate production has been delayed five years, according to GAO testimony to Congress on March 20.
Michael Rein, a Lockheed spokesman, cited in an e-mail yesterday a statement by Panetta that the Defense Department is "100 percent committed to the development of the F-35."
Ending Production
The Navy's program for the Super Hornet, the most modern version of the aircraft carrier-based F/A-18, calls for 565 aircraft. Boeing says it will shut down its St. Louis production line unless there are additional planes, leading to a loss to the U.S. industrial base, according to the company document distributed to Congress.
Boeing currently has a multiyear contract ending in fiscal 2013 and valued at $5.3 billion for 124 aircraft, including an electronics-jamming version of the aircraft called the Growler. The final delivery for aircraft that the Navy will buy in 2013 will come in 2015, according to Defense Department budget documents.
Navy leaders would like to extend the multiyear contract and buy 13 more of the latest F/A 18 models in 2014, according to March 20 congressional testimony submitted by Navy officials including Vice Admiral Mark Skinner, the principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition.
For fiscal year 2013, the Navy requested about $30.2 million in advance procurement of materials for the aircraft, according to Defense Department documents.
Multiyear Contract
Boeing wants the additional $60 million for advance procurement of 24 more aircraft in the budget that Congress will write in coming months, according to the document circulated in Congress.
Continuing with a multiyear contract "is going to save us a lot of money," McCaskill said.
The Pentagon projects the current multiyear contract for the Super Hornets will save $852.4 million compared with procuring aircraft through annual contracts. The "flyaway" cost of a Super Hornet averages $67 million this year, according to Pentagon budget documents. The flyaway cost doesn't include research and development, support and training equipment, technical data or spare parts.
Boeing also wants Congress to put language in its annual defense authorization measure encouraging the Navy to keep the production line open to meet future needs.
'Unmatched Capability'
The Super Hornet "offers unmatched capability, availability and affordability for naval aviation," Boeing spokesman Sean McCormack said in an e-mailed statement. The fighter offers "date-certain deliveries, cost-certain production and proven combat capability," McCormack said. McCormack declined to comment on the company document circulated on Capitol Hill.
Super Hornets and older Hornets have conducted more than 148,000 combat missions since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and continue to provide support to deployed U.S. troops, according to the Navy. Two Super Hornet versions -- the single-seat E model and the two-seat F model -- have been in service with the Navy since November 1999.
The Navy and the Marine Corps, which is part of the Department of the Navy, each operate hundreds of strike fighters, aircraft that can conduct both air-to-ground and air- to-air operations. F/A-18s are the principal strike fighters operated by the Navy and Marines, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Retiring Older Planes
The Navy plans to retire older versions of the F/A-18 and shift to a combination of Super Hornets and carrier-based F-35s. The Marines want a strike-fighter fleet made up solely of the F-35 version designed for short takeoffs and vertical landings.
The Navy estimated last year that it sees a shortage in the number of fighters for its 11 aircraft carriers starting in 2015. Pentagon officials, including Panetta, said last year that the Pentagon needed to buy more Super Hornets as a hedge against delays in F-35 production.
The Navy projects its shortage of strike aircraft to "remain below a manageable 65 aircraft through 2028, with some risks," said Captain Cate Mueller, a Navy spokeswoman. The shortage is affected by use of the aircraft fleet and deliveries of fighter jets as well as the Navy and Marine Corps force structure, according to Mueller.
"The Department of the Navy continues to meticulously manage the fatigue life and flight hours of our tactical aircraft," Mueller said in an e-mailed statement. The Navy "continues to evaluate all options to manage the strike fighter inventory," she said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-29/boeing-lobbies-for-2-billion-in-jets-as-lockheed-delayed.html
Interessant topic op F-16.net omtrent de F-35 en het Australia's Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18916-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html
Er worden een aantal "stellingen" uit het rapport gehaald, zoals :
- A lot of classified info could not be discussed.
- 11k pages of data is shared with Partner nations PER MONTH about the JSF.
- The "fuel leak" from the first Eglin AFG flight was rainwater that has seeped into the panels.
- The F-35 has been tested up to 9.88G
- Up to 650 parameters use to ID a potential threat. For comparison's sake, the F-22 has a third of that. Talk about Situational Awareness.
- AIM-120 PK is significantly higher than the 50% when fired by the F-35 during simulations
- F-35 consistently wipes the floor with Su-35's in high detail simulation even with expert pilots on the red team
- The 2 missile (1xIR , 1xRadar) combo touted by APA so often does not work as well as APA "guesses" it does due to F-35's signature reduction measures (IR and Radar)
- Confirmation that even though you know F-35's are in the area (low band radar), you can't engage them which is the whole issue when fighting stealth aircraft
- F-35's MADL automatically routes the datalink between aircraft so as to not fire the beam directly at the enemy when connecting to the aircraft up front
Of worden we allemaal express in het ongewisse gelaten en dom gehouden voor de buitenwereld (lees : Russen, Chinezen, ...) en kan LM niet alle informatie geven van de geweldige capatiteiten van de F-35, omdat ze met geheimhouding zitten van het sensorenpakket icm stealth e.d.
Citaat van: Harald op 30/03/2012 | 09:18 uur
Interessant topic op F-16.net omtrent de F-35 en het Australia's Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18916-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html
Er worden een aantal "stellingen" uit het rapport gehaald, zoals :
- A lot of classified info could not be discussed.
- 11k pages of data is shared with Partner nations PER MONTH about the JSF.
- The "fuel leak" from the first Eglin AFG flight was rainwater that has seeped into the panels.
- The F-35 has been tested up to 9.88G
- Up to 650 parameters use to ID a potential threat. For comparison's sake, the F-22 has a third of that. Talk about Situational Awareness.
- AIM-120 PK is significantly higher than the 50% when fired by the F-35 during simulations
- F-35 consistently wipes the floor with Su-35's in high detail simulation even with expert pilots on the red team
- The 2 missile (1xIR , 1xRadar) combo touted by APA so often does not work as well as APA "guesses" it does due to F-35's signature reduction measures (IR and Radar)
- Confirmation that even though you know F-35's are in the area (low band radar), you can't engage them which is the whole issue when fighting stealth aircraft
- F-35's MADL automatically routes the datalink between aircraft so as to not fire the beam directly at the enemy when connecting to the aircraft up front
Of worden we allemaal express in het ongewisse gelaten en dom gehouden voor de buitenwereld (lees : Russen, Chinezen, ...) en kan LM niet alle informatie geven van de geweldige capatiteiten van de F-35, omdat ze met geheimhouding zitten van het sensorenpakket icm stealth e.d.
Ik weet het niet....als dat toestel zo goed is ..waarom bestellen de Amerikanen er dan zo weinig ?
En waarom houden ze die F22 zo geheim?! Zelfde reden lijkt mij.
Citaat van: dudge op 30/03/2012 | 13:24 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 30/03/2012 | 09:18 uur
Of worden we allemaal express in het ongewisse gelaten en dom gehouden voor de buitenwereld (lees : Russen, Chinezen, ...) en kan LM niet alle informatie geven van de geweldige capatiteiten van de F-35, omdat ze met geheimhouding zitten van het sensorenpakket icm stealth e.d.
Natuurlijk weten 'wij' lang niet alles, en daarnaast zijn veel prestatieparameters die wel 'bekend' zijn moeilijk op waarde te interpreteren.
Al met al is de vraag natuurlijk hoe eea gaat verlopen. Het meest zorgwekkende wordt, en niet alleen bij de F35, het kwantiteitsvraagstuk...
+1
FIDAE: Fighter manufacturers eye Chile's F-5 replacement need
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
Defence contractors displayed their wares at Chile's FIDAE air show in the hope of securing an early foothold in a potential new fighter contest.
By 2015, Chile must replace an aged fleet of 16 upgraded Northrop F-5E/Fs, locally called the Tiger III Plus. The aircraft are the remnants of a larger fleet that has mostly been replaced with second-hand Lockheed Martin F-16s.
Though the F-5s are equipped with the relatively new EL/M-2032 radar from Israel's Elta Systems, the lightweight fighters date back to the early 1970s. Santiago had originally hoped to retire the twin-engined type by 2009.
However, a replacement programme never materialised. Instead, Chile continued to buy surplus F-16AM/BMs from ex-Royal Netherlands Air Force stocks. Initially, it had planned to buy 18 of the refurbished aircraft, but has instead ended up with 36. That is in addition to 10 F-16C/D Block 52s that the country purchased new from the USA.
US and European defence contractors are expressing interest in supplying Chile with new fighters to replace the remaining F-5s.
Boeing displayed an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II cockpit demonstrator with a front and rear cockpit that can mimic either version of the strike aircraft, and a large area display that the company is currently developing. Boeing says it does not comment on discussions it might have with potential customers.
Saab is also attending the show, and the company says it would be interested in a Chilean tender should it materialise.
"Based on our experiences from the successful F-5 replacement in Thailand and the ongoing negotiations with Switzerland on the same theme, we are confident that Gripen would be a very interesting candidate in this case as well," says company representative Jenny Nilsson. However, it has had no contact with the Chilean government regarding any F-5 replacement, it says.
Lockheed is also at FIDAE, but is non-committal about bidding for a potential Chilean requirement, noting that it will work with the nation to "to ensure that their F-16 fleet continues to serve the defence needs of their country".
The Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are also potential candidates if a contest takes place.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fidae-fighter-manufacturers-eye-chiles-f-5-replacement-need-370081/
THALES : delivers first production RBE2 AESA radar to Dassault Aviation
03/30/2012
Neuilly-sur-Seine - In February, Thales delivered the first series-produced RBE2 radar with active electronically scanned array (AESA) to the Dassault Aviation facility in Mérignac, France. The radar will now be installed on Rafale C137, the first Rafale with this new capability, which is scheduled for delivery to the French defence procurement agency (DGA) this summer. A comprehensive three-month flight test programme conducted with the first production RBE2 AESA radar at the Istres air base demonstrated the qualities of the radar and confirmed the expected levels of performance prior to delivery to Dassault Aviation.
The RBE2 AESA radar was delivered in line with the contract schedule, demonstrating the new radar's technological maturity and further consolidating Thales's European leadership in radars for combat aircraft.
The RBE2 AESA will give the Rafale a number of key advantages:
• Extended range for full compatibility with the latest-generation long-range missiles, such as the Meteor, combined with the ability to detect low-observable targets
• Higher reliability for reduced cost of ownership (no major maintenance is required on the active array for 10 years)
• Waveform agility for high-resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) imagery and increased resistance to jamming
The Rafale will be the only European combat aircraft under full-scale production with an active-array radar. The operational superiority of this omnirole combat aircraft, which was demonstrated most recently during Operation Harmattan in Libya, is now further assured for the full spectrum of French Air Force and Navy missions relying on the new technology.
http://www.4-traders.com/THALES-4715/news/THALES-delivers-first-production-RBE2-AESA-radar-to-Dassault-Aviation-14248583/
Oxygen problem in F-22 Raptor remains a mystery
(March 30th, 2012 @ 6:16am)
WASHINGTON (AP) - An Air Force advisory panel says it still can't explain what caused blackouts and dizziness among pilots flying its supersonic F-22 Raptor.
Officials told a Pentagon press conference Thursday that the stealth fighter is safe and continues to fly in the continental United States, with pilots using special sensors, filters and other safety steps to mitigate problems with the plane's on-board oxygen system.
The Air Force says it's putting into place a number of safety recommendations made in the seven-month study.
Retired Air Force Gen. Gregory Martin, who headed the study panel, said officials will continue to study the problem until they find its cause.
The Air Force's entire fleet of those fighters, which are made by Lockheed Martin Corp., was grounded for four months last year until mid-September after pilots complained of lack of oxygen.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press
Eurofighter Nations Award $2.7B in Typhoon Support Contracts
Mar. 30, 2012 - 09:53AM
By ANDREW CHUTER
London — The four Eurofighter nations have awarded industry contracts worth about 2 billion euros ($2.7 billion) to support the Typhoon fighter over the next five years.
The deals will cover logistical and technical support, including mechanisms to continue development work for the combat jet operated by partner nations Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, as well as export customers Austria and Saudi Arabia.
Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Alenia Aermacchi both announced deals for their respective air forces.
BAE said it had signed a contract worth 535 million euros while Alenia said its deal was worth more than 500 million euros.
EADS Cassidian, which represents German and Spanish industrial interests in Eurofighter, has yet to declare the value of deals with their two national governments.
A spokesman for Eurofighter said the total value of the deal to industry was worth "in the region of 2 billion euros."
Some of the activities covered by the contract are specifically for the air forces of the individual partner nations while other work will involve future development of Typhoon for all four air forces. Integration of new weapons, development of an active electronically scanned array radar and other upgrades are all earmarked for Typhoon.
Update plans for the fighter jet have been an issue in recent export contests, all of which the Typhoon has lost.
"The agreement demonstrates a commitment by all parties in achieving continued efficiencies on the program, long-term support for the sustainability of aircraft covering all three production tranches, and future enhancements and upgrades to the platform," Eurofighter said in a statement.
In a statement, BAE said the contract will introduce efficiencies by bringing together a number of legacy contracts and proposed new work into an umbrella contract. The company said the move would help reach the target of cutting Typhoon support costs by 30 percent as well as sustain up to 600 engineering jobs in Britain.
A spokesman for BAE said that 134 million euros of the new umbrella contract was accounted for by the legacy deals.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120330/DEFREG01/303300001/Eurofighter-Nations-Award-2-7B-Typhoon-Support-Contracts?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
Citaat van: Harald op 30/03/2012 | 09:18 uur
Interessant topic op F-16.net omtrent de F-35 en het Australia's Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18916-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html
Er worden een aantal "stellingen" uit het rapport gehaald, zoals :
- A lot of classified info could not be discussed.
- 11k pages of data is shared with Partner nations PER MONTH about the JSF.
- The "fuel leak" from the first Eglin AFG flight was rainwater that has seeped into the panels.
- The F-35 has been tested up to 9.88G
- Up to 650 parameters use to ID a potential threat. For comparison's sake, the F-22 has a third of that. Talk about Situational Awareness.
- AIM-120 PK is significantly higher than the 50% when fired by the F-35 during simulations
- F-35 consistently wipes the floor with Su-35's in high detail simulation even with expert pilots on the red team
- The 2 missile (1xIR , 1xRadar) combo touted by APA so often does not work as well as APA "guesses" it does due to F-35's signature reduction measures (IR and Radar)
- Confirmation that even though you know F-35's are in the area (low band radar), you can't engage them which is the whole issue when fighting stealth aircraft
- F-35's MADL automatically routes the datalink between aircraft so as to not fire the beam directly at the enemy when connecting to the aircraft up front
Of worden we allemaal express in het ongewisse gelaten en dom gehouden voor de buitenwereld (lees : Russen, Chinezen, ...) en kan LM niet alle informatie geven van de geweldige capatiteiten van de F-35, omdat ze met geheimhouding zitten van het sensorenpakket icm stealth e.d.
1. Geclassificeerde info. Wordt in relatie tot het JSF project vaak gebruikt om critici de mond te snoeren. Onder het mom van jullie weten helemaal niet hoe deze kist werkelijk is. Ergens in de jaren 80 in het VK; een spotter wordt gearresteerd en zijn foto's in beslag genomen. De spotter zou volgens de RAF kans hebben gezien om de revolutionaire radar (antenne) van de Tornado Air Defense Version te fotograferen. Na het einde van de Koude Oorlog blijkt deze radar antenne helemaal niet revolutionair te zijn, want het ging om een jaren 60 technologie Cassegrain radar antenne. Concreet: een schotel antenne met de bolle zijde naar voren wijzend. Iets geheim houden kan je dus doen om zowel superieure als inferieure vaardigheden verborgen te houden.
2. De F-35 is getest tot 9,88G. Droeg de F-35 tijdens deze test(s) wapens en zo ja, welke? De F-22A is met bewapening tot en met 10G gecertificeerd.
3. De AIM-120 (AMRAAM) Probability of Kill = aanzienlijk hoger dan 50% tijdens GESIMULEERDE lanceringen vanaf een F-35.
Tijdens tests en simulaties voor de Vietnam oorlog haalde de AIM-7 Sparrow een PK van 70%. Boven Vietnam bedroeg de PK echter een schammele 8%. Tot op heden zijn er 10 vliegtuigen neergehaald door AIM-120's. Op deze 10 kisten zijn echter 17 AIM-120's afgevuurd = een PK van 58,8 %. 1 van deze 10 kisten was een Amerikaanse Black Hawk, 2 Irakese MiG's waren op de vlucht en vlogen in een rechte lijn. Geen enkel AIM-120 slachtoffer gebruikte elektronische tegen maatregelen.
4. De F-35 veegt de vloer aan met de Sukhoi-35 in SIMULATIES. F-16 vliegers in een F-35 simulator hebben ook de vloer aangeveegd met hun collega's in gesimuleerde F-16's. Het betrof hier echter gesimuleerde F-16's zonder infra-rood apparatuur; zonder AESA radar; zonder data uit een netwerk dat de beschikking heeft over L-band-, en /of VHF band radars, passieve radar zoals de Silent Sentry of de Thales HA-100. Heeft een F-35 tegenvoeter wel de beschikking over deze systemen, dan komen de kaarten aanzienlijk anders te liggen. Denk maar aan die beduidend meer steelse F-117 Nighthawk die boven Voormalig Joegoslavie neer werd gehaald met een SA-3 / S-125 raket ontworpen in de jaren 60.
F-15 Deal Exemplifies Mideast Modernization
Boeing's $11.4 billion F-15 sale to Saudi Arabia shows how the Middle East region is still a big factor in combat aircraft development, despite the attention paid to China and emerging markets such as India and Brazil.
The deal includes not only 84 new-build F-15SAs, which will sustain production in St. Louis through 2018, but also the upgrade of 70 older F-15S fighters to the new configuration, a major rework to be carried out in-country. (The $11.4 billion does not include the last element.)
The F-15SA is the second version (after Singapore) to be delivered with the APG-63(V)3 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. It is the first to have BAE Systems' digital electronic warfare system (DEWS), a complete replacement for the Northrop Grumman ALQ-135, which has evolved on the F-15 throughout the life of the program. DEWS is expected to be less costly to support, more reliable and easier to reprogram than earlier systems. Like the Singaporean aircraft, it has a Lockheed Martin AAS-42 infrared search-and-track system, known as TigerEye on the F-15.
The Saudi variant is the first all-fly-by-wire F-15, which is expected to reduce maintenance requirements because the controls are self-rigging. It has a so-called PDM-free wing that does not require periodic depot maintenance on its structure. Another change is that the wing stores stations Nos. 1 and 9 are activated, mainly in order to carry a larger air-to-air load in conjunction with air-to-surface weapons. The Saudi order includes AGM-88B High-Speed Antiradiation Missiles from U.S. stocks.
Also part of the F-15 agreement is the supply of Goodrich DB-110 long-range oblique photography (Lorop) reconnaissance pods. In public, Lorop pods have been eclipsed by UAVs, but the Royal Air Force has used the DB-110-based Raptor pod extensively on Tornados, and the Thales Areos pod carried by Rafale was valuable in Libya. Egypt has ordered DB-110 pods for its F-16.
Boeing is also looking at Kuwait as a potential market for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and has not given up on the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The latter market may be open following the public criticism of France's Rafale offer at last November's Dubai air show, with the Emirates scolding Dassault for the commercial terms it was offering and seemingly inviting other bids. In February, however, French press reports indicated that the UAE order for Rafale was still under discussion, with President Nicolas Sarkozy due to visit the region in late March, before France's election.
A continuing factor in Middle East security is that the U.S. is not talking about the export of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Arab nations, and restricts the sale of long-range weapons. The F-15SA is being delivered with the AGM-88B—superseded in U.S. production in the 1990s—and the latest AIM-120D version of the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam) is not cleared for export.
This could lead to an increasing gap in air combat capability between Middle East nations and Israel, particularly if the latter pursues Rafael's Future Air-to-Air Missile (FAAM). This revolutionary weapon is the intentional offshoot of the Stunner interceptor used in the David's Sling missile defense system, which was designed as a two-stage weapon, the upper stage being smaller than Amraam and capable of being used as an AAM with minimal changes. FAAM is a highly agile, hit-to-kill weapon (with no warhead or fuze) with a combined millimeter-wave radar and imaging infrared seeker.
Heavy offensive weapons included with the Saudi package are of the direct-attack type (laser-guided and GPS-guided bombs). Rafale is available with the Sagem Hammer (highly agile modular munition extended range) weapon family, which can use its rocket sustainer to attain a standoff range up to 60 km (35 mi.), and includes four warhead sizes and three guidance systems, with a common airframe and systems interface. The GPS-inertial version, of which more than 100 were used in the early stages of last year's operations in Libya, has been joined in service by an autonomous imaging infrared model (using a template for guidance), and a laser-guided version capable of engaging moving targets (at up to 50 mph) is under test.
Additionally, Rafale carries the MBDA Storm Shadow/Scalp-EG cruise missile, also used in Libya. Technically, this weapon is covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime, but France and the U.K. nevertheless sold the Black Shaheen variant to the UAE in the 1990s to arm its Mirage 2000-9s. A Saudi Panavia Tornado, meanwhile, was seen several years ago undergoing tests with Storm Shadow in support of an upgrade program.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2012/03/19/AW_03_19_2012_p70-434709.xml&headline=F-15%20Deal%20Exemplifies%20Mideast%20Modernization&channel=defense
Iraq seeks killer missiles, but U.S. wary
March 31, 2012
Iraq is acquiring an array of missiles and other sophisticated systems for the 36 Lockheed Martin F-16s it's buying to build an air force but Washington is reluctant to provide Baghdad with the most advanced U.S. weapons.
U.S. officials say they are worried that a strong Iraqi air force with offensive weapons systems would alarm Iraq's neighbors. Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait a decade later.
Even nine years after Saddam was toppled in the 2003 U.S. invasion, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Muslim allies in the Persian Gulf remain deeply suspicious of Shiite-majority Iraq and its Shiite leader, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
As it is, even Iraq's rebellious Kurds, whom Saddam massacred with genocidal ferocity for decades, have deep concerns about the weaponry Baghdad seeks.
Rampant official corruption in Iraq, particularly when it comes to big-ticket defense contracts, and the continuing threat of sectarian bloodletting are other factors behind American wariness in giving Iraq state-of-the art weaponry.
But even so, Baghdad's air force shopping list is good news for potential U.S. contractors that include BAE Advanced Systems of Greenlawn, N.Y., the Boeing Corp. of Seattle, Northrop-Grumman Electro-Optical Systems of Garland, Texas, and its Electronic Systems division of Baltimore, General Electric Aircraft Engines of Cincinnati, and Raytheon Co. of Lexington, Mass., and Goleta, Texas.
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems received an $87.8 million order through the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales program for 43 AN/APG-68v9 radar systems, most of which will go to Iraq, in March. These are the most modern radar systems available for the F-16 variants being produced.
Iraq is also acquiring 100 supersonic AIM-9L/M Sidewinder heat-seeking, air-to-air missiles and 150 medium-range AIM 7M/H Sparrow radar-homing missiles. Both are manufactured by Raytheon.
Iraqi military sources say the Pentagon wouldn't sell Baghdad the latest version of the Sidewinder, nor Raytheon's AIM-20 all-weather, beyond visual range Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile -- AMRAAM -- which has replaced the Sparrow with the U.S. Air Force.
The AIM-9L/M-8/9 that Washington is prepared to sell Baghdad is a generation behind the AIM-9X in service with the U.S. Air Force.
It's probably capable enough of handling most regional hostile aircraft Iraqi fighter pilots are likely to tangle with, although the Americans are increasingly making top-line weapons systems available to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates whose fighters will likely bear the brunt of any dogfighting with Iranian jets in ant future conflict in the Persian Gulf.
Iraq's also interested in buying 24 F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 Increased Performance jet engines. The U.S. Defense Industry Daily reports "strong signs that the initial buy will be the F-100-PW-229s from Pratt and Whitney."
Baghdad ordered 18 F-16IQ Block 52 fighters -- enough for one operational squadron -- with training and weapons from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas, assembly plant in September 2011 for $4.2 billion after months of delays.
These were the first frontline combat aircraft for the nascent postwar air force, whose predecessor under Saddam had been one of the strongest in the Middle East.
In its heyday, before the Iraqi military was savaged by U.S.-led allied forces in Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91, the air force had some 500 combat aircraft.
In December 2011, Baghdad ordered a second batch of 18, plus weapons, worth around $2.3 billion -- first time sales are always more expensive than subsequent buys.
However, according to Defense Industry Daily, the F-16s Iraq will get are below the standard of F-16s delivered to U.S. allies in the Middle East and Asia.
That underlined Washington's wariness, which has undoubtedly increased since U.S. forces completed their withdrawal from Iraq in mid-December, in providing Baghdad top-line systems.
Maliki's dictatorial tendencies, which intensified since the pullout, have fueled fears the crackdown on political rivals he launched even as the last U.S. troops were leaving and his all-encompassing control of the defense and security ministries will trigger another round of sectarian warfare.
Iraq's first F-16 squadron -- it eventually wants six, equipped with up to 96 F-16s -- will likely become operational until around 2014-15.
The first batch of Iraqi pilots is training in Tucson with the 162nd Fighter Wing, an Air National Guard unit, which specializes in training foreign pilots.
Copyright 2012 U.P.I.
F-35 update, Australië kiest mogelijk voor bijkomende Super Hornets
Door Joris Van den Berghe zaterdag 31 maart 2012 21:00 UTC+00:00, reacties: 0
In Australië gaf Minister van Defensie Stephen Smith onlangs toe aan de plaatselijke pers dat er bekeken zal worden of de Australische luchtmacht (de RAAF, Royal Australian Air Force) bijkomende F-18E/F Super Hornets nodig heeft. De knoop wordt eind dit jaar of begin volgend jaar doorgehakt. In Japan is men bezorgd over de oplopende prijs van het nieuwe toestel en de Canadezen overwegen de annulering van hun F-35-bestelling. Het is niet meer dan logisch dat dan in het zuidelijke gedeelte van de Stille Oceaan eveens een alarmlicht afgaat.
Australië is namelijk een Level 3 partner en krijgt pas op de lange termijn de nodige F-35 Lightnings. Canberra heeft er 100 op z'n verlanglijstje staan, maar heeft een voorlopige bestelling geplaatst voor 14 toestellen, waarvan twee in de VS blijven voor de opleiding van onderhoudspersoneel en piloten. Deze toestellen zouden in 2014 moeten geleverd worden. "Mijn grootste bezorgdheid is de planning, de productie en de beschikbaarheid van het toestel. Daarom moeten we zo voorzichtig zijn en ervoor zorgen dat we geen gaten in onze lijstje met (tactische, nvdr) mogelijkheden krijgen."
© Lockheed-Martin/JSF Joint Program Office
De Australische luchtmacht kreeg in 2010 haar eerste Super Hornets, en heeft nu alle 24 toestellen in dienst. Deze toestellen werden aangekocht in 2007, om te vermijden dat Australië te weinig vliegwaardige toestellen in haar luchtmacht heeft. Een land kan het zich nu eenmaal niet veroorloven om geen 'combat-ready' toestellen te hebben.
Zoals u hierboven al las, schijnen er nu ook in Canada twijfels te rijzen of de F-35 wel de juiste keuze is. Het land kocht in een ver verleden CF-104s: een versie van de F-104, eveneens van Lockheed. Net zoals de F-35 was de F-104 een eenmotorig toestel, wat het kwetsbaar maakte bij motorproblemen.
Van de tweehonderd gebouwde toestellen gingen er niet minder dan 110 CF-104s verloren bij ongelukken, zij het uiteraard niet allemaal door motorpannes. We horen u al denken "dit is toch een toestel uit de jaren '50, niet ?". Dat is zo. Motoren zijn aanzienlijk betrouwbaarder geworden sinds die tijd. De "crashende F-104-gedachte" (dat ook Duitsland kende) blijft desondanks leven in Canada. In dat reusachtige land is de Canadese luchtmacht met een tweemotorig toestel mogelijk beter gebaat, want een eenmotorig toestel blijft kwetsbaar.
© Lockheed-Martin/JSF Joint Program Office
In Japan maakt men zich zorgen over mogelijk oplopende kosten van de F-35. In een e-mail benadrukte het Japanse Ministerie van Defensie dat "als de kosten zonder geldige redenen stijgen, er van de aankoop kan worden afgezien."
We keren terug naar Europa. Noorwegen had al vier jagers besteld van de A-variant. In totaal komen er mogelijk 52 toestellen, waarvan vier gebruikt zullen worden als opleidingstoestellen. De Scandinaviërs hebben zo'n 10,5 miljard dollar over voor deze bestelling en houden het bij de F-35.
In Groot-Brittannië is er een debat tussen naar verluidt enkele hoge officieren van de Britse strijdkrachten enerzijds en de Britse politiek anderzijds over de keuze voor de F-35C.
Na de Strategic Defense & Security Review van eind 2010 koos de Britse regering ervoor om haar nieuwe vliegdekschepen uit te rusten voor CATOBAR-operaties (Catapult Assisted Takeoff But Arrested Landing: net zoals de Amerikaanse vliegdekschepen dus). Daardoor was het Verenigd Koninkrijk verplicht om F-35Cs te kopen in plaats van F-35Bs, de STOVL-variant (Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing, zoals de Harrier).
© Lockheed-Martin/JSF Program Office
Nu zorgen deze aanpassingen ervoor dat het Britse defensiebudget uit evenwicht geraakt, omdat de toekomstige Queen Elizabeth-klasse vliegdekschepen eigenlijk ontworpen was voor de F-35B. Er is dan wel een mogelijkheid in het ontwerp ingebouwd om de schepen naar klassieke vliegdekschepen om te bouwen, maar de kosten daarvan lopen blijkbaar bijzonder hoog op. De kosten lopen zelfs zo hoog op, dat er wordt gesuggereerd dat de F-35B misschien uiteindelijk toch goedkoper zal zijn. Ten tijde van de SDSR zei men dat de kosten tijdens de verwachte levensduur van het toestel bij de F-35C 25 % lager zouden liggen dan bij de F-35B.
Het moge duidelijk zijn dat zo'n beslissing niet in een handomdraai genomen kan worden. De vroegere Britse Labourregering nam de beslissing om de F-35B te nemen en werd daar onder vuur door genomen door de oppositie. Nu zijn de rollen omgekeerd. Nu Labour in de oppositie zit, zou het moeilijk worden voor de Britse regering (bestaande uit conservatieven en liberaal-democraten) om zonder het schaamrood op de wangen zo'n beslissing te verdedigen.
© Lockheed-Martin/JSF Program Office
In de Verenigde Staten heeft de Amerikaanse Minister van Defensie, Leon Panetta, het vertrouwen van zijn ministerie in de F-35 bevestigd. Het Pentagon staat 100 % achter het programma en wil dat het binnen het budget van de Amerikaanse defensiestrategie blijft. "Dit is een jager van de vijfde generatie die we absoluut nodig hebben in de toekomst", legde hij uit. Hij bevestigde ook dat zijn administratie vindt dat het toestel alles zal kunnen doen wat ervan wordt gevraagd – wat de prestaties betreft. Diezelfde prestaties werden enkele jaren geleden door de Amerikaanse denktank c.q. lobbygroep RAND onder vuur genomen, waarop de toenmalige Australische minister meteen uitdrukkelijk om een briefing van zijn ministerie vroeg.
Ondertussen, in het Amerikaanse Congres (parlement), verduidelijkte Frank Kendall, het hoofd van de aankoopafdeling van datzelfde Pentagon, aan senator en voormalig presidentskandidaat John McCain dat de kost van het reusachtige F-35-programma niet meer dramatisch zou oplopen. "Ik voorzie geen bijkomende kosten – toch niets ter grootte van wat u beschreef," verklaarde hij voor de Amerikaanse senaat op 29 maart. Hij gaf echter toe dat enkele bijkomende problemen desondanks nog wat extra geld zullen opslorpen.
Het programma, dat onlangs nog werd geherstructureerd na een rits van kostenverhogingen en vertragingen, kost nu 150 miljard dollar meer dan gedacht toen het begon. Het is sinds jaar en dag een traditie binnen defensieprogramma's om kosten eerder te onderschatten dan te overschatten.
"Ik denk niet dat er een defensieprogramma is dat geen budgetoverschrijving kent. Zoiets beweren zou, de laatste 50 jaar in aanmerking genomen, een statement van jewelste zijn."
© Lockheed-Martin/JSF Joint Program Office
Het civiele hoofd van de USAF, Michael B. Donley, verklaarde onlangs dat toekomstige problemen Lockheed-Martin een paar toestellen kunnen kosten. De USAF zou dan wel 1763 exemplaren van de F-35A willen kopen, dit nummer kan steeds worden veranderd.
Van de F-22 bijvoorbeeld wilde de Amerikaanse luchtmacht in 1991 zo'n 648 toestellen kopen, voor een totaal van 86,6 miljard dollar. Twee jaar later bleven er 442 toestellen en 71,6 miljard over. Uiteindelijk zouden er slechts 187 productietoestellen worden gemaakt.
Vice-admiraal David Venlet, de program manager voor de F-35 meent dat de JSF belangrijk is, omwille van de sensoren die het toestel heeft – die zouden complementair zijn voor andere systemen. Het is als het ware een toestel dat een vogelperspectief biedt voor mensen op de grond. "Nu is het programma realistisch wat het budget en de planning betreft. We zijn ook transparant als het op problemen aankomt die tijdens de tests aan de oppervlakte komen. Elke ontwikkelingsfase van jagers kent zo'n kinderziektes."
http://www.flightlevel.be/11888/f-35-update-australie-kiest-mogelijk-voor-bijkomende-super-hornets
Government signals lack of commitment to F-35 purchase
OTTAWA — The Conservative government on Saturday continued to air the possibility that Canada might back down from plans to purchase a fleet of 65 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets.
The federal budget tabled in the House of Commons Thursday makes no mention of the troubled F-35 program, which in July 2010, Canada announced it would join for a cost of $9 billion, plus $7 billion for 20 years of maintenance.
Instead, the budget merely says the government will acquire an "affordable replacement for Canada's aging CF-18 fleet."
On Saturday, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told CBC Radio's The House: "There never was a contract signed, as you know. So this is still a matter that is being negotiated as we go forward, but the minister of national defence will deal with that."
Earlier in the week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper had made a virtually identical statement during his trade mission to Asia, saying: "We haven't yet signed a contract, as you know. We retain that flexibility."
Newly elected NDP leader Thomas Mulcair called on the government to open up the bidding process for the CF-18's replacement. "Well, if we don't have a contract for this one, then maybe we should start a proper bidding process to find out exactly what we need, and stop trying to tailor it so only the F-35 can meet the requirements," he told CBC Radio's The House on Saturday.
"We do need to replace the CF-18. There are lots of countries in the world that make fighter jets. A lot of them might be better suited to our purpose," Mulcair said.
Canada is one of nine countries, led by the United States, that have partnered in the development of the fighter. The others are Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.
Rising costs and delays in the plane's development have prompted the U.S. and some of its partners to delay and scale back orders from contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., further propelling unit costs higher and causing even further delays.
In the United States, the Pentagon announced on Thursday the plane would not reach full production until 2019 — two years later than planned. The overall cost of the program is now estimated at $1.1 trillion US, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.
Canada's plan to purchase up to 65 of the jets is based on a very specific timetable, and a slower ramp-up in production could force a tough decision between paying more per plane or extending the life of the country's CF-18s. The federal government says the purchase will amount to $16 billion, while others peg the price tag at up to $30 billion.
The Conservative government has planned to have Canada receive its F-35s in a staggered delivery between 2016 and 2023, when they are in "peak production" to ensure the best price. At the same time, Canada's fleet of CF-18s is due to be retired by 2020.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 01/04/2012 | 10:42 uur
Government signals lack of commitment to F-35 purchase
Zal Canada het eerste (partner) land zijn dat een andere keuze zal gaan maken?
(het begint er in ieder geval wel steeds meer op te lijken, een verrassing en een nieuwe competitie hangt in de lucht)
Brazil close to jet fighter decision: minister
Published: 1 Apr 12 07:21 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
Brazil is in the "final chapters" of making a decision to award a lucrative jet fighter deal, the defence minister Celso Amorim said on Saturday.
Amorim indicated that the decision could be expected within a few months.
Swedish manufacturer Saab's Gripen jet fighter is up against the Rafale fighter, made by French firm Dassault Aviation and US aviation giant Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet for a tender from Brazil to supply 36 multi-role combat aircraft.
The contract has been variously valued at between $4 billion and $7 billion.
"We are entering the final chapters," Amorim told the magazine Istoe. "I have an expectation that the matter can be resolved in this semester (first half of the year)," he said.
A senior Brazilian government source said Monday that President Dilma Rousseff would decide which fighter jet to buy after a visit to Washington in April and the French presidential election in May.
Amorim has previously said June is a likely date for the announcement.
Last year, Brazil delayed a decision on the purchase following a major budget cut, but the jets are needed to beef up the country's air force.
French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said before a visit to Brazil in December last year that he was confident the Rafale could beat off rival bids because the aircraft's technology was superior.
The Rafale was used in the recent war in Libya but the fighter has repeatedly lost out in tenders in countries including Singapore, South Korea, Morocco, and earlier this month, Switzerland.
India has selected the Rafale for its air force, but a deal has not yet been formalized.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet said last year that unless the Rafale can find a foreign buyer, the government will have to stop funding its production by Dassault.
http://www.thelocal.se/40018/20120401/
De Canadezen en Aussies lijken me een stuk realistischer in het leven te staan dan wat wij in Den Haag aan hapsnurkers hebben.....
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 01/04/2012 | 10:52 uur
De Canadezen en Aussies lijken me een stuk realistischer in het leven te staan dan wat wij in Den Haag aan hapsnurkers hebben.....
Ach... met 68 F18E zijn ook wij beter af dan met 30+ (maar 40-) F35A's
Tja, Hillen weet het allemaal beter....
Pentagon Confident In F-35 Buy Schedule
Mar. 31, 2012 - 11:31AM
By MARCUS WEISGERBER
The U.S. Defense Department believes the military services will be able to purchase large quantities of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter late in the decade, despite competing modernization priorities and a relatively flat Pentagon budget.
A report sent to Congress on March 29 details the Pentagon's plan for near peak production rates for the Lockheed Martin-built stealth jet beginning in 2018. In that year, program officials said they will be able to purchase 110 jets. By 2021, the production rate will hit 130 jets, which includes versions for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
But there are serious concerns within the Air Force and Navy about whether they will be able to afford the number of aircraft projected to be bought later this decade.
"We worked very closely with all the services, and particularly the programming and budgeting staffs of the services, to ensure that our program fits within their overall total obligation authority for the service in those years," Air Force Maj. Gen. John Thompson, the F-35 deputy program executive officer, said in a March 30 briefing with a group of reporters in Arlington, Va.
Late in the decade, around 2018, the Air Force and Navy are expected to have a number of expensive programs enter production.
For example, the Air Force's KC-46A tanker plane, now in development, is expected to enter full-rate production in that time frame, in addition to a new rescue helicopter, and a new bomber program is expected to be well underway. The Navy's Ohio-class submarine replacement, the SSBX(X), is projected to consume a large portion of the service's shipbuilding budget.
In February 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress he wasn't sure the services would be able to afford all of the modernization programs envisioned in the 2020s.
"We continue to be concerned about affordability in the long term of the Joint Strike Fighter," Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said at a March 8 conference sponsored by McAleese & Associates and Credit Suisse.
DoD now plans to fully ramp up production of Marine Corps and Navy F-35s at a pace of 50 jets per year in 2018, according to DoD's recently updated selected acquisition report for the program. Last year's report projected 50-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.
Program officials are expecting the Navy and Marine Corps jets to be evenly split at 25.
Air Force production is expected to hit 60 jets in 2018 and peak at 80 jets in 2021. Last year's report projected 80-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.
"As we got closer out to the end of the [five-year future years defense plan], based on our analysis of Lockheed Martin's capabilities and based on the production desires of the services and partners, we elected to go into a gradual production ramp," Thompson said.
The deputy program manager expressed optimism that the Air Force could reach that 80-aircraft-per year goal. Those numbers might have to be tweaked to accommodate international purchases, Thompson noted.
"We've been given a production profile to plan to [and] we're doing that," Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for F-35 program integration and business development, said March 30.
The estimated cost per jet varies depending on a multitude of factors, including whether already spent development costs are included.
Using 2012 dollar values, the program office projects the Air Force version of the jet, the aircraft being purchased by most international customers, to cost $78.7 million.
The carrier version's recurring flyaway cost is projected at $87 million, and the Marine Corps' short-takeoff, vertical-landing version at $106 million, also using 2012 dollar values.
The average procurement unit cost of all versions, including contractor services, publications, training and support equipment and other items, comes in at about $109 million per jet.
Despite the cost increases, Lockheed said the F-35's cost will be on par with the F-16, one of the combat jets it is designed to replace. The company believes the Air Force version of the F-35 will cost closer to $70 million per aircraft.
Company officials said this is on par with the F-16, since the F-35 comes with additional equipment not included in F-16 cost estimates, such as a targeting pod.
Using then-year dollar estimates, DoD now says the entire F-35 program will cost $396 billion, $17 billion more than it estimated last year, according to the selected acquisition report. The overall sustainment cost for the program is estimated at about $1.1 trillion, according to the document.
DoD officials project the F-35 program will cost $1.51 trillion over 55 years. That cost includes production, development, operations, sustainment and other items, according to program officials. The program cost estimate last year was $1.38 trillion. That's a $124.2 billion, or 9 percent, increase.
The new estimate also adds two and a half years to the program.
Slowing procurement of the F-35 in the near term, as laid out in DoD's 2013 budget request, will add nearly $6.2 billion in procurement and development costs. DoD removed 179 F-35s from planned buys between 2013 and 2017.
"As we have restructured and rebaselined our development program, as we've flattened our production ramp and as we've addressed the life-cycle costs going forward ... we are confident that the program that we have now established is executable," Thompson said.
The program has experienced issues with the jet's helmet-mounted display and the carrier-version tail hook.
"We have the appropriate resources, we have the time to do the work the correct way and we absolutely, positively have the support of all the services, our eight international partners and our growing posse ... of [foreign military sales] customers," Thompson said.
Frank Kendall, the acting Pentagon acquisition executive, approved the new F-35 baseline March 26, Thompson said. The program has not been rebaselined since 2002.
"That acquisition-program baseline essentially reflects our revised program, sets our cost, schedule and technical performance going forward. It updates us from base year '02 to base year '12 dollars, [and] breaks the program down into two major subprograms — aircraft and engine," Thompson said.
Kendall gave the OK on March 28 to continue development and low-rate production. DoD sent the revised F-35 numbers to Congress in its selected acquisition reports March 29.
"A large portion of the [authorization memo Kendall signed] was devoted to affordability targets for the program, both in the unit recurring flyaway cost and then cost per flying hour," Thompson said.
"We have got to drive cost out of the program. Affordability is a major focus on the program going forward, but we know we can't just concentrate on affordability," Thompson said. "We have issues, such as software development, that we have to dependably deliver."
Lockheed is three months behind on software development, O'Bryan said. The company has built a $150 million "mission systems lab" to test new software and has hired 200 new software engineers to work on these issues.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120331/DEFREG02/303310001/Pentagon-Confident-F-35-Buy-Schedule?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
UK needs to stop jumping from one jet to the other
David Sapsted
Apr 2, 2012
LONDON // Ministers will attempt this month to finally resolve an embarrassing fiasco over what jets will fly from Britain's next generation of aircraft carrier.
To the chagrin of the nation's military chiefs, the government has already prematurely decommissioned the nation's plane-carrying carrier in a defence cost-cutting exercise. The last, the Ark Royal, was taken out of service last year, leaving the Royal Navy with just two helicopter carriers.
Two new, 60,000-tonne carriers are being built at a cost of £7 billion (Dh41.22bn) but the first will not enter service for another seven years. And because of continuing spending restraints, the second is due to be mothballed as soon as it is built.
If all this were not causing enough consternation in military circles, the government is now dithering over exactly what sort of aircraft will fly from the one, operational carrier, the Prince of Wales.
The Labour government originally opted for the short take-off/vertical landing F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), being principally developed by the United States with Britain as a junior partner.
After the Conservative-led coalition government came to power in 2010, however, the prime minister, David Cameron, abandoned this plan and opted instead for the more conventional F-35C version, which requires a catapult to be launched and arrester wires when it lands.
At the time, Mr Cameron said he was abandoning Labour's plan for the jump jet because the aircraft was a "more expensive and less capable version" of the JSF.
By the beginning of March, however, the government was ready to change its mind yet again in what Jim Murphy, Labour's "shadow" defence secretary, described as "one of the biggest public procurement messes for many decades".
Mr Cameron appeared set to revert to the F-35B after being informed by the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, that the cost of equipping the Prince of Wales with the necessary "catapult and traps" to accommodate the F-35C had risen from £1.2bn to £2bn.
The government was prepared to announce the U-turn this week but, at the 11th hour, the US government intervened and urged Mr Cameron to stick to the F-35C, which the US navy will be operating from its carriers.
American concern stems from the fact that if Britain goes back to a carrier capable of launching only the jump-jet version, US aircraft would not be able to use it in joint operations.
Sean J Stackley, the US navy assistant secretary, insisted in a letter to Peter Luff, the UK's defence procurement minister, that the catapult equipment would not be as expensive as the British believed and that the US would help with the cost of the arrester-wire system.
Mr Cameron is now having a rethink about his rethink and has ordered the government's Major Project Review Group to embark on a cost analysis, the results of which will be considered by the National Security Council on April 17.
"The Americans are worried that, if Britain goes for the jump jet version, all the grand plans for operational carrier cooperation between the US, Britain and France will go out of the window," a diplomat in London said.
"Unfortunately, the whole affair has not been handled well and gives the impression that, when it comes to ordering defence equipment, the government does not really know what it's up to. In truth, it's all about trying to keep costs down."
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/uk-needs-to-stop-jumping-from-one-jet-to-the-other
F-35 Buy/Operating CostsProduction F-35A = $83.4 million
F-35B = $108.1 million
F-35C = $93.3 million
Cost Per Flying HourF-35A = $35,200
F-35B = $38,400
F-35C = $36,300
Vergelijkingen met andere type-toestellenUS method: Flying cost per hour - F35A: $35,200
German method: Flying cost per hour Tornado:
2007: €41,804 = $55,833.42
2008: €40,426 = $53,992.97
Typhoon:
2009: €73,992 = $98,823.72
UK method: Flying cost per hour - Tornado GR4: £35,000 = $56,057.08
- Tornado F3: £43,000 = $68,870.13
- Typhoon: £70,000 = $112,114.16
- Harrier GR7/GR9: £37,000 = $59,260.34
Dutch and Belgium method: Flying cost per hour - F16 MLU: €20,000 = $26,712 (2012 dollars)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-18957.html
Maar dit kun je natuurlijk niet 1 op 1 vergelijken met de F-35, maar wel belangrijk voor de exploitatiekosten
Citaat van: Poleme op 29/03/2012 | 20:10 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 29/03/2012 | 10:05 uur
Wel verbazingwekkend is dat een 2-motorige F-15E en F-18E/F beduidend lager liggen in vlieg-uur-kosten, een F-15E $ 28.640,- USDollar = € 21.766,- Euro
operational costs : (van diverse in USAirforce vliegende toestellen)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/08/exclusive-us-air-force-combat.html
operational costs : (F-35B/C versus F-18)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/01/chart-f-35bc-operating-costs-v.html
De F-15E en F-18E/F (USD 23.000 per uur) zijn beduidend goedkoper per vlieguur, vanwege de onderhoudskosten aan de Radar Absorberende Materialen en constructies van de F-35A. De eerstgenoemde jachtbommenwerpers hebben ook geen permanent ingebouwde laser-, en infra-rood doelaanwijs apparatuur en geen 6 permanent ingebouwde 'Gatekeeper' 360 graden kijkende infra-rood camera's.
De F-35A heeft een aanzienlijk complexer elektronica pakket aan boord en op de grond, dan de F-15E en F-18E/F. De kosten per vlieg-uur voor de F-35A staan nu geschat op USD 30.000. Helemaal niet verbazingwekkend, de eveneens steelse F-22A Raptor doet zelfs ca. USD 49.500 per vlieguur.
Pentagon Portfolio Sees 5% Cost Growth
The U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) analysis of 96 programs in the 2011 Pentagon portfolio puts their total cost to complete at $1.58 trillion, a 5% increase over the previous year.
The 10 largest programs account for more than half the portfolio cost; the Joint Strike Fighter's $327 billion total accounts for one-fifth.
In assessing the overall impact of program cost growth, GAO observes that more than 60% of programs "lost buying power" because of increases in unit costs.
Hoort het F-35-programma hier ook bij ??
Nou als ik de kosten per vlieguur voor de Typhoon zie dat is toch niet meer normaal ? als zo'n ding 10 uur in de lucht is met bijtanken enz..ben je gewoon een miljoen euro kwijt..hahah
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 02/04/2012 | 11:27 uur
Nou als ik de kosten per vlieguur voor de Typhoon zie dat is toch niet meer normaal ? als zo'n ding 10 uur in de lucht is met bijtanken enz..ben je gewoon een miljoen euro kwijt..hahah
Ik snap nog steeds niet hoe ze aan dat getal komen in vergelijking tot andere 2 motorige kisten, voor het gemak, volgens deze getallen, 1 vlieg uur van een EF is ongeveer net zo duur als 4 uur vliegen met een een F15E/F18E
Kortom... de EF kan van het (NL) wensenlijstje af (jammer voor de Eurofielen)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/04/2012 | 11:36 uur
Ik snap nog steeds niet hoe ze aan dat getal komen in vergelijking tot andere 2 motorige kisten, voor het gemak, volgens deze getallen, 1 vlieg uur van een EF is ongeveer net zo duur als 4 uur vliegen met een een F15E/F18E
Kortom... de EF kan van het (NL) wensenlijstje af (jammer voor de Eurofielen)
Dat is dus niet helemaal te vergelijken.
Maar, in vergelijking met een Panavia Tornado, die een stuk goedkoper is, maar wel zwaarder, en ouder, vraag je je af waarom de EF zoveel (60%) duurder is dan de tornado. De EF heeft trouwens wel erg sterke motoren.
Citaat van: dudge op 02/04/2012 | 11:47 uur
Dat is dus niet helemaal te vergelijken.
Maar, in vergelijking met een Panavia Tornado, die een stuk goedkoper is, maar wel zwaarder, en ouder, vraag je je af waarom de EF zoveel (60%) duurder is dan de tornado. De EF heeft trouwens wel erg sterke motoren.
Zelfs de F22 doet het voor, voor zo ver ik het begrijp, voor minder dan de helft.
IN FOCUS: End of F-22 production closes chapter in eventful history
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
2 hours ago
On 14 March, a lone Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor took to the skies over Georgia on a test flight. It was the last of 187 aircraft ordered by the US Air Force.
Interessant stuk met dito foto's
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-end-of-f-22-production-closes-chapter-in-eventful-history-369881/
Lockheed Martin Statement on 2011 F-35 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)
30 March 2012
As recently reported, the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued the 2011 F-35 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) to Congress, which updated the total cost estimates to develop, build, operate, upgrade and maintain all aspects of the F-35 program and its military support infrastructure for the next 55 years. Lockheed Martin remains confident that F-35 operations and support costs will be comparable to or lower than that of the seven legacy platforms that it will replace and our statement on the Selected Acquisition Report may be found below, including answers to frequently asked questions.
Today, the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued to Congress the 2011 F-35 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR). It included estimates of the total cost to develop, build, operate, upgrade and maintain all aspects of the F-35 program and its military support infrastructure for the next 55 years. The total estimated cost, including adjustments for anticipated inflation—which represent more than one-third of the total—is $1.51 trillion.
The cost projections estimated in the SAR are based on a number of variables that are subject to considerable fluctuation over the next 55 years, making the estimate inherently imprecise.
For example, media reporting on the 2010 SAR estimate included only operations and support costs, while recent reports on the 2011 SAR estimate add the cost of acquisition and development which the U.S. government currently estimates at $396B. This results in the appearance of cost growth year over year.
The DOD's decision to shift the delivery of 179 aircraft beyond 2020 also added cost growth. This shift caused a $60 billion increase in operations and support costs due to inflation and the two-year program extension. The SAR estimate also added four squadrons, grew staffing requirements and increased scope. For example, the 2011 estimate added 2,650 personnel for maintenance and security for the U.S. Air Force at an additional cost of $24.3 billion. The government also included the cost of lifetime modernization to the aircraft to improve its capabilities — expenses that are not included in the cost projections for other aircraft.
Lockheed Martin remains confident that F-35 operations and support costs will be comparable to or lower than that of the seven legacy platforms that it will replace. The F-35 also provides our Armed Forces and allies with the unprecedented 5th Generation fighter performance capabilities of radar-evading stealth, supersonic speed, agility and the most comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft. The F-35 will achieve cost advantages over the platforms it will replace by leveraging economies of scale – gained through deployment by the three U.S. service branches and international partnerships – and a common logistics, maintenance, training and supply chain infrastructure.
The F-35 will also achieve lower or comparable operation and support costs than legacy systems while providing greater capabilities.
Lockheed Martin believes there are realistic opportunities to further reduce the cost of the F-35 through manpower adjustments based on the aircraft's reliability and maintainability, planned support concepts and adjustments to basing. We are committed to working with our partners and customers to efficiently and effectively produce an affordable F-35 for our Armed Forces and allies.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Q1. What costs are included in the SAR projection that estimates F-35 Operations & Support (O&S) costs will exceed $1 trillion?
A1. Any estimate that projects costs for 55 years of operations of a 2,443 aircraft fleet is going to result in a large figure. In fact, more than one-third of the F-35 O&S cost projection is assumed inflation over the next half-century. What is important is that F-35 O&S costs will be comparable to or lower than that of the seven unique legacy platforms it will replace, while providing our Armed Forces and allies with unprecedented 5th Generation fighter performance capabilities, including radar-evading stealth, supersonic speed, agility and the most comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft ever. The F-35 achieves cost advantages over the platforms it will replace by leveraging the economies of scale – gained through deployment by the three U.S. service branches and international partnerships – and a common logistics, maintenance, training and supply chain infrastructure. Long-term projections like these are useful for identifying potential cost risk areas and in enabling the program to develop mitigation strategies for the next 50+ years, but they need to be viewed through that long lens. The entire Lockheed Martin and F-35 teams are continuously focused on further reducing overall cost.
Q2. How has the recent program restructuring affected O&S costs?
A2. The recent decision to delay production of 179 F-35s to beyond 2020 has resulted in a $60 billion increase in operations and support costs because these aircraft will now be delivered in later years when inflation is factored in at a higher rate. The delay also extended the program life cycle by two years.
Q3. How was this estimate calculated?
A3. Never in the history of U.S. aviation has the Pentagon tried to project the cost of an aircraft program over a 55-year period. The F-35 is the first aircraft program to undergo this type of review. The cost figures recently released for the F-35 represent projections for a half-century of supporting 2,443 aircraft within 111 squadrons at 49 bases around the world in future-year dollars. More than one-third of this estimate is assumed inflation. Because the F-35 is not yet fielded, a large percentage of the estimate is based on legacy historical costs—from other aircraft—and does not fully reflect design and maintenance attributes that were designed into the program from the start to reduce overall lifecycle costs. We expect to realize the benefits of these attributes as the program matures. In fact, 50 percent of the design Key Performance Parameters—which we met—were associated with minimizing sustainment costs. Lockheed Martin is fully committed to fielding an F-35 that is both effective and affordable.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/march/0330hq-f-35-sar.html
Dit gaat toch niet waar zijn? :( :( :(
Nog meer onnodige ontwikkelingen die goud geld kosten en dus ten kostte gaan van wat er nu is :(
Citaat van: Marc66 op 02/04/2012 | 22:46 uur
Nog meer onnodige ontwikkelingen die goud geld kosten en dus ten kostte gaan van wat er nu is :(
De andere kant van het verhaal lijkt te zijn dat het nu een progamma van 55 (!) jaar te gaan worden, grofweg 1,5 tot 2 generatie fighters (al moet ik het nog zien).
De huidige prijs en de huidige status vind ik eigenlijk steeds minder spannend worden, wat ik wel spannend vind is, wat zijn de kosten en capaciteiten vanaf 2019/20?
Dus eigenlijk is het maar goed dat er nu nog geen definitieve beslissing wordt genomen.
Als ik de Amerikanen mag geloven (de voorstanders) dan is het totale progamma versus de toestellen die het gaat vervangen over de gehele progamma periode aanzienlijk goedkoper dan diverse types ontwikkelen, aanschaffen en exploiteren.
Als het voor de Klu dan toch de F35 wordt, dan weet je ook dat deze niet na 30 jaar wordt vervangen, zo tegen 2050 maar eerder ver na het midden van deze eeuw (als we dan nog een zelfstandige Klu hebben)
Laat ze het maar waar maken (een nee kan ook in 2015 nog).
Misschien is het beste idee nog wel om een interim fighter voor een jaar of tien te leasen (naar Italiaans voorbeeld) om vervolgens in 2025 een definitive keuze te maken zodat rond 2029 deze kist kan instromen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/04/2012 | 23:13 uur
Als het voor de Klu dan toch de F35 wordt, dan weet je ook dat deze niet na 30 jaar wordt vervangen, zo tegen 2050 maar eerder ver na het midden van deze eeuw (als we dan nog een zelfstandige Klu hebben)
Ik denk dat deze gedachte berust op een misinterpretatie. Nu wordt gesteld dat het toestel 55 jaar meegaat, maar ik neem aan dat daar het model mee wordt bedoeld, en niet het individuele Airframe. De F16 gaat dat trouwens misschien ook wel halen 1975-2025, Maar de f16's die in 2025 vliegen zijn de blok 52's en blok60's, en niet de F16 uit 1975. Voor de F35 heeft men denk ik iets vergelijkbaar voor ogen. Dat betekend dus als wij nu 24 F35's kopen, dat als deze in een periode van 2 jaar instromen, we uiteindelijk gewoon op zoek moeten naar een vervanger, en dat kan dan een F35 worden, zoals we de F16 nu ook door de F16 kunnen vervangen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/04/2012 | 23:13 uur
Misschien is het beste idee nog wel om een interim fighter voor een jaar of tien te leasen (naar Italiaans voorbeeld) om vervolgens in 2025 een definitive keuze te maken zodat rond 2029 deze kist kan instromen.
Lijkt me ook helemaal niet zo'n slecht plan, en politiek nog wel haalbaar.
F-35's exorbitant cost clouds its future
CBC News
Posted: Apr 2, 2012 8:16 PM ET
Recent weeks have not been the best of times for the F-35.
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program that produces the fighter jet is weathering strong criticism in the U.S., threats and actual delays or cancellations of aircraft orders, and negative revelations in the media.
As costs spiral upward, militaries around the world cut their orders, driving the costs per plane still higher.
Last month, the estimate of the lifetime cost of the U.S. F-35 program , the most expensive U.S. arms program ever, crossed the $1.5 trillion mark. The U.S. Defence Department has been postponing its F-35 orders but is sticking to its total purchase number of 2,443 production F-35 Lightning IIs.
Eight other countries, including Canada, are partners in the JSF program and plan to purchase 697 F-35s. Aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin expects to sell at least that many F-35s to other countries.
Orders cancelled, delayed
In February, Italy, a JSF partner, cut its order by 41. In 2002, it had agreed to purchase 131 F-35s. State-owned Finmeccanica is to assemble the jets that Italy, the Netherlands and Norway purchase.
For the first time an F-35 is on a night refuelling mission, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., on March 22. (Lockheed Martin)
A few weeks later, Japan, the JSF's first customer in Asia, warned in a letter to the U.S. Defense Department that the growing cost and program delays may lead to cancellation of its order for 42 F-35s. And the deal with Japan had only been reached in December.
Julian Fantino, Canada's associate minister of national defence, surprised many of his listeners at a meeting of the House of Commons committee on national defence on March 13 when he announced that Canada's purchase of 65 F-35s was not guaranteed.
Then on March 22, Australia announced it was delaying its orders for the F-35. Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the delivery date for 12 of the first 14 planes ordered was "under consideration" and the second batch of 58 jets was not a priority.
There was some good news for the JSF program amidst the cancellations and delays. On March 23, Norway upped its order by four, and will now buy 52 F-35s.
F-35 faces challenges on the home front
While the global forecast for the F-35 is cloudy, Lockheed Martin has to be concerned about the storm warnings at home in the U.S.
The government is trying to reduce military spending and officials have warned orders will be cut if costs continue rising.
"We have told the contractor and the program office that there is no more money," U.S. Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said on March 20.
But the amount of money that is there is huge. The 19 F-35As that the U.S. will acquire in fiscal year 2013 will cost $197 million each.
In 2001, the projected cost for those jets was $69 million. Going forward, the cost per plane is expected to drop, assuming order numbers do not.
Over the course of the U.S. program, the average cost of acquiring the F-35 should average $162 million. (The Canadian government estimates their 65 F-35s will cost just $75 million each to acquire. But the parliamentary budget officer pegs that number at $148 million.)
JSF program in question
F-35 Lightning II Full Mission Simulator includes a high-fidelity 360-degree visual display system and a reconfigurable cockpit. (Lockheed Martin)
The U.S. government's General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report on March 20 that raised serious questions about the JSF program.
According to Michael Sullivan, the GAO's director of acquisition management, "The long-stated intent that the Joint Strike Fighter would deliver an affordable, highly common fifth-generation aircraft that could be acquired in large numbers could be in question."
The report states that, "Manufacturing processes and performance indicators show some progress, but performance on the first low-initial production contracts has not been good."
Daniel Zanatta, a vice-president at Magellan Aerospace in Mississauga, Ont., said he is not really concerned about the program's problems in the U.S. Magellan is involved with the JSF program.
Zanatta told Embassy Magazine that the program is "moving actually very nicely through those challenges in the last 18 to 24 months."
Unmanned aerial systems vs. F-35s
The F-35 is called a fifth generation aircraft because of its technology, but that technology also adds to the costs and delays.
The plane requires millions of lines of software, "with testing of the most complex software and advanced capabilities still in the future," according to the GAO. And only "four percent of the aircraft mission system for full combat capability has been verified."
The emergence of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) raises doubt in some quarters whether the F-35 is the way to go. Current UAS have the elements of fifth generation fighters and are much cheaper to produce.
Unmanned drones are taking away assignments for reconnaissance and even strike roles from jets with pilots onboard.
The JSF program has also had some perception problems recently, due to revelations in the media.
The U.S. Marine Corps F-35B test aircraft BF-2 flies with external weapons for the first time over the Atlantic test range at Patuxent River Naval Air Systems Command in Maryland on Feb. 22. The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter for the USMC, capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings for use on amphibious ships or expeditionary airfields. (Lockheed Martin/Reuters)
On March 11, The Sunday Times in London reported that, "Chinese spies hacked into computers belonging to BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence company, to steal details about the design, performance and electronic systems" of the F-35. The jet's advanced radar capabilities were thought to be one of the targets.
That report adds confirmation to a Wall Street Journal report about a hacking attack on BAE in 2009. China denied the claims then, and again after last month's story.
The CBC's Evan Solomon reported on March 26 that the Canadian government's 2010 statement of operational requirements for new fighter jets was drafted just two months before Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced the F-35 was the choice, suggesting the process had been hijacked, as the process would normally take a year or two.
Solomon also reported that the F-35 didn't even meet all the requirements.
A lengthy article on the F-35 in the current issue of the Canadian Military Journal concedes that although "the JSF program has proven to be an exorbitantly expensive, imperfect and risky endeavour," the F-35 is Canada's only choice.
The only choice
"If Canadians are set on equipping their military with the most advanced arms available, political considerations and market demands all but guarantee that their only choice of aircraft is the F-35," write researchers Marco Wyss and Alex Wilner.
In Canada, the process of selecting the F-35 has long been questioned by the government's critics. On Tuesday, Auditor General Michael Ferguson will issue a report that CBC News has learned will be scathing. Ferguson is expected to focus his criticism on the air force and on procurement officials inside DND.
CBC News has also learned that the government will establish a secretariat of senior deputy ministers inside the Public Works Department to oversee the process. The CBC's Chris Hall reports that will remove the lead from Fantino, who is in charge of procurement at DND.
"The government now is acknowledging ... that the process was flawed, that there are serious troubles with it," Hall said on CBC-TV's Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/02/f-f35-cost-concerns.html
Citaat van: dudge op 02/04/2012 | 23:43 uur
Ik denk dat deze gedachte berust op een misinterpretatie. Nu wordt gesteld dat het toestel 55 jaar meegaat, maar ik neem aan dat daar het model mee wordt bedoeld, en niet het individuele Airframe. De F16 gaat dat trouwens misschien ook wel halen 1975-2025, Maar de f16's die in 2025 vliegen zijn de blok 52's en blok60's, en niet de F16 uit 1975. Voor de F35 heeft men denk ik iets vergelijkbaar voor ogen. Dat betekend dus als wij nu 24 F35's kopen, dat als deze in een periode van 2 jaar instromen, we uiteindelijk gewoon op zoek moeten naar een vervanger, en dat kan dan een F35 worden, zoals we de F16 nu ook door de F16 kunnen vervangen.
Hier heb je natuurlijk gelijk in. Als de eerste operationele F35's rondvliegen in 2019/20 dan lijkt het voor de hand te liggen dat deze kist c.a. 30 (misschien 40) jaar mee gaat. Ergens rond 2035 zal een MLU wellicht noodzakelijk blijken om te blijven aanhaken bij de ontwikkelingen van die tijd zodat de kist operationeel mee kan tot 2050. Ergens in de jaren veertig zal dan ongetwijfeld een nieuwe verhitte dscussie ontstaan over een end life update of een vervanging door een nieuwe (block xx) F35 of een andere bemanden/onbemande oplossing.
F-35 program to get overhaul after scathing AG report
CBC News
Posted: Apr 2, 2012 6:32 PM ET
Canada will re-examine the F-35 jet fighter program following the release of an auditor general's report Tuesday that slams the Defence Department regarding its compliance with procurement policies.
CBC News has learned that Auditor General Michael Ferguson will focus his criticism on the air force and on procurement officials inside the Defence Department.
His report is expected to say that officials inside the Defence Department misled government ministers and did not provide accurate information about everything from the cost of the Lockheed Martin fighters to the delivery date.
The government is expected to strip the Defence Department of its responsibility for the program and set up a special secretariat of deputy ministers inside the Public Works Department to manage the program.
The Treasury Board will review all Defence Department documents in order to ensure accuracy and more oversight, as well as to better inform both the government and the public about the F-35 program.
Julian Fantino, the associate minister of national defence, first suggested to the House defence committee in March that the purchase of the F-35 was not a foregone conclusion.
Canada would remain involved in the Joint Strike Fighter program, he said, but "the decision, the determinate decision, has not as yet been made as to whether or not we are going to actually purchase, buy, acquire, the F-35."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said later that Canada has participated in the F-35 development program with its allies for 15 years and the aerospace industry had received "hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts" because of it.
"We haven't yet signed a contract, as you know, we retain that flexibility but we are committed to continuing our aerospace sector's participation in the development of the F-35."
Canada had originally planned to buy 65 jets for $9 billion, though escalating costs for the fighter have thrown that into doubt.
The estimated lifetime cost of the entire U.S. F-35 program , the most expensive ever, has crossed the $1.5-trillion mark.
Over the course of the U.S. program, the cost of acquiring each F-35 should average $162 million.
The Canadian government estimated its 65 F-35s would cost just $75 million each to acquire, but the parliamentary budget officer has pegged that number at $148 million.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/02/f35-auditor-general-report.html
F-35 : toekomstig vliegend AWACS en Electronic Warfare (EW) platform ??
werkelijkheid of luchtballon ?
The F-35 as a "Flying Sensor Fusion Engine": Positioning the Fleet for "Tron" Warfare
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-as-a-%e2%80%9cflying-sensor-fusion-engine%e2%80%9d-positioning-the-fleet-for-%e2%80%9ctron%e2%80%9d-warfare/
The F-35 is often simply referred to as a tactical aircraft, and a replacement for 4th generation or legacy aircraft. It is really something quite different.
It represents a dramatic shift from the past. For the first time in history, individual F-35 pilots –A, B or C – will have the best database of real time knowledge in the history of combat aviation. And all of this is internal to their cockpit and enabled by advances in computer processing and sensor information fusing.
Each F-35 pilot combined with human sensing (seeing visual cues outside the cockpit) will be enabled by machine driven sensor fusion to allow combat "situational awareness" (SA) better than any other opponent.
Concurrent with their ability to look- see, which is limited by physical realities, the F-35 pilot will be able to "see" using cockpit electronic displays and signals to their helmet allowing them not to just fight with their individual aircraft but be able to network and direct engagements at 800+ miles in 360 Degrees of 3 dimensional space out to all connected platforms.
A fleet of F-35s will be able to share their fused information display at the speed of light to other aircraft and other platforms, such as ships, subs, satellites, and land based forces, including UAVs and eventually robots. Tactically, "Aegis is my wingman, ""SSGN is my fire support" will be developed for conventional warfare.
This enables a "tactical" aircraft to evolve into a key technology for strategic operations and impacts.
The value and confidence of timely information in combat is everything. One must always remember technology and con-ops are always relative against a reactive enemy. The enemy gets a vote, the game is not simply played by the friendly forces. The enemy will have a reaction and that will define the pace, nature and outcome of the conflict.
The Emergence of Tron Warfare
The F-35 is known as a 5th generation player in the state-of-the-art for both the Air-to-Air Fighter, and Air-to-Air Attack combat roles.
It also adds an "electronic" or "tron" warfare component to the fight.
Electronic Warfare (EW) is a complex subject with many discreet but also connected elements.
EW was designed inherently into the F-35 airframe and C5ISR-D Cockpit.
EW can include offensive operations to identify an opponents emissions in order to and fry spoof or jam their systems. In successful "tron" war, often-kinetic kill weapons can be fired. An F-35 can be a single sensor/shooter or off load it's track to other platforms such as; planes, ships and subs and eventually UCAS-Unmanned Aerial Combat Systems.
The kinetic kill shot is usually a high speed missile designed to HOJ (home on jam). It has been said on the modern battlefield — air, sea or land — if not done correctly, "you emit and you die."
http://www.sldinfo.com/extending-the-honeycomb-transformation-re-visited/
http://www.sldinfo.com/pacific-strategy-vii-"aegis-is-my-wingman"/
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-01/long-reach-aegis
Defensively in "tron war." there are a lot of other EW issues such as; Electronic Counter Measures, (ECM), Electronic Counter Counter Measures, all things "Cyber War, " which is a subject unto itself and is extremely complex and not well understood.
Electro Magnetic Pulse concerns (EMP), Infer-Red Sensing (IR) and always protecting "signals in space" of the friendly info being transmitted and as mentioned jamming the bad guys "signals in space," all are key considerations in Tron Warfare.
What is necessary to succeed in evolving capabilities to fight in the age of Tron Warfare? In taking a lesson from history, pre-WWII AA&T long lines research found that in order to build and keep operational a U.S. phone system, the AT&T visionaries found that the key to success was the need for "robust and redundant" systems.
Two human Generations, later the F-35, was designed as being both inherently robust and redundant with many sensors and systems built into the airframe structure from initial design forward. All the F-35 systems designed and developed sent "trons" into the aircraft cockpit "Fusion Engine." Trusted fusion information generated by inherent aircraft systems queued up electronically by threat will send to the cockpit displays, and the pilot's helmet battle ready instantaneous Situational Awareness.
The Z Axis and the "Fusion Engine"
This is the beginning of a combat aircraft design that is building along a new axis-the "Z-axis." The "Z axis" is a core discriminator. The F-35 aircraft is not a linear performance enhancement from F/A-18 4th Gen; it has a third performance axis "Z."
The "Z" axis is the pilot's cockpit C4ISR-D (for decision) loop axis. Starting at the beginning air fleet Command and Control from WWI on it has morphed into C5ISR (useful but getting silly) – Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Traditionally, in looking at the progression of aircraft a two-dimensional design depiction has been used; the x-axis is time and the y-axis is performance. That graph captures individual airplanes, but they do tend to cluster in generation improvement. Each aircraft clustered in a "generation" is a combination of improvements.
The aeronautical design "art" of blending together ever improving and evolving technology creates improvements in a linear fashion, if not performance would eventually go asymptotic. The airframe design characteristics blended together prior to F-35 have been constantly improving range, payload (improved by system/and weapons carried), maneuverability (measured by P Sub s), speed, and range (modified by VSTOL–a basing mobility plus factor).
The F-35 is also designed with inherent survivability factors, redundancy and hardening and stealth. Stealth is usually seen as the 5th Gen improvement.
But reducing the F-35 to a linear x-y axis improvement simply misses the point.
The F-35 is now going to take technology into a revolutionary three-dimensional situational awareness capability. This capability establishes a new vector for TacAir aircraft design. This can be measured on a "Z" axis.
Historically, Command and Control (C&C) was external to 1,2,3, 4th and some 5th Generations of TacAir. Now known as C5ISR the goal was still enhancing fleet wide combat performance for all Type/Model/Series (T/M/S) of TacAir.
This is the current modern AWACS (hub and spoke) battle management concept.
But byusing a three-dimensional graph, one can understand that the "Z-axis" takes airpower into a totally different domain.
The shift is from externally provided C5ISR into C5ISR-D for decision into the cockpit. This is the revolutionary step function that breaks the linear progression of previous Generations.
The "Z" axis in which the F-35 is the prototype is the first "C5ISR –D (for decision) cockpit.
A design focus of F-35 is the cockpit, and helmet displays of trusted fused integrated systems. Enabled with that technology the pilot can also be a distributed information decision-maker.
This is the Z axis in action and the enabler is the trusted "fusion engine."
Pic: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... lide11.jpg
Definitions:
•Multi-Function Array (MFA) or the AESA Radar
•Distributed Aperture System (DAS)
•Electrical Optical Targeting System (EOTS)
•Electronic Warfare System.
•CNI (Communications, Navigation and Identification System) — connected to the other combat systems via the high-speed data bus is the CNI which is a core and very flexible RF system that enables the aircraft to operate against a variety of threats.
The systems are built upon a physical link, namely a high-speed data bus built upon high-speed fiber optical systems.
http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35-combat-system-enterprise/
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-emergence-of-the-z-axis-changing-the-way-airpower-enables-combat-operations/
The "Z-Axis" is the research vector for robust US and allied IR&D and R&D system upgrades. Each individual sensor is focused on servicing the cockpit "fusion engine."
This is where the fleet concept of "separate" airframes – As, Bs, and Cs – and across both US and Allied forces yields major breakthroughs and savings. By forging diverse research streams into a common fusion engine, the inherent waste in doing research which then needs later to generate its own platform or is inherently designed for a specific platform with little global reach is obviated.
However, R&D research can go forward also independently on all systems feeding into this trusted fusion engine. This IR&D process can bring value based analysis and engineering on where to put specific emphasis and budget dollars on improving each system for best tactical pay-off.
This dynamic is moving combat system R&D research up the "Z-axis."
It is an approach to ending stove piping while not closing off the dynamics of change which different systems can provide for future capabilities for the aircraft, the fleet and flying combat systems.
Re-Looking at The Evolution of Capabilities from a Z Axis Perspective
All sensor elements of F-35 T/M/S C5ISR-D cockpit are structured to build three Dimensional War fighting with the concept that "no platform fights alone."
Ultimately, information will go up and out. This is a fundamental rule for the Intelligence Community and will be a fundamental practice of the F-35 fleet.
This research path can drive 4th to 5th to 6th gen AA & AG weapon research. Currently 5th gen airframes are firing 4th Gen weapons at best.
Fusion engine sensors can drive unity of purpose "aim point" for world wide Defense firms/consortiums.
There is a huge R&D con-ops and training and tactic adjustment required to tie in with legacy systems. Perhaps vectoring the helmet might be cheapest way to promote this type of integration.
The F-35 "Z-Axis" is Symbol driven war fighting and thus language agnostic.
http://www.sldinfo.com/looking-beyond-the-libyan-airpower-moment-shaping-coalition-coherence/
F-35 can network battle management with emerging UCAS systems and robots. UAVs are part of future of aviation NOT the future of aviation. This must be tested at Northern Edge EW exercise.
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-northern-edge-difference-re-structuring-the-strategic-debate/
C5ISR-D Fusion engine is an inherent redundant aircraft and fleet "survivability" factor, as much as war fighting factor. It and can operate internally in the aircraft and off load an attack on one sensor to use the other sensor systems to keep the mission alive. This is cyber war inoculation and can be tested at Northern Edge
"UCAS V Tron warriors" This entire issue MUST be tested and understood. "Cyber" is now being used as a word weapon both pro and con to kill or justify systems and as an organization budget driver as much as a realistic threat. Positing the challenge of protecting everything protects nothing.
The PLA is modernizing its air and naval forces along a linear command directed "hub and spoke" (AWACS-is their key tell). US Air/Sea Battle can build"honeycomb" technology base/con-ops, which is a winning formula for Allies and US.
http://www.sldinfo.com/special-report-on-crafting-a-new-pacific-strategy/
Against future hypersonic cruise missiles if F-35 did not exist it would have to be invented. Hypersonic cruise missiles are the biggest emerging realistic threat against the fleet and "others." (Dr. Mark Lewis former Chief Scientist USAF). With nine minutes of incoming flight, seven minutes can be an eternity at speed of light. The F-35 is a component of focusing energy weapon, "tron" warfare capability and kinetic weapon research relevant to the task and is hence enhanced ship survivability in an operational theater.
The US and its Pacific allies can be their own relative reactive enemy if PLA gets hypersonic cruise missiles. An F-35 lighting up threats 800 miles out and vectoring our killer hypersonic cruise missiles will be a deadly first shot, the one that really counts
http://www.sldinfo.com/winning-the-airsea-battle/
Conclusion
The F-35 sensor engine is a key element to fighting "Tron War." The F-35 seen as a fleet of capability provides an entirely new approach to cognitive learning for the warfighter. Similar to Jean Piaget's approach to understanding the cognitive learning of the child, the fleet learns as it fights and reaches different levels of competence and capabilities in dealing with the reactive enemy.
This point was driven home in a recent note made by Dean Ebert, a Naval Academy Grad, and former USMC pilot. Dean was one of the key sources of an interview done at the Paris Air Show in 2007 by Doug Barrie and Amy Butler when they were talking with General Trautman, then DCA of the USMC, about the future of Electronic Warfare.
Behavioral aspects of cognition are finding their way into architectures, processing, fusion, and distribution/collaboration of information nodes. Pulling your thread of increased processing power and open architectures — not to mention C4ISR-D and the Z-axis — we are now able to interact with our environment in a more "human" way.
By this I mean that we sense our environment, we understand it, we interact with it based on that understanding, and then as the environment changes we change with it.
Throughout this process, we allow our systems/networks to learn not only what it has sensed and which dials to turn to better interact, but to remember what they HAVE learned... then they can share that with other nodes that may have interests.
You could think of a automated equalizer for a stereo that adapts automatically to a room based on user defined preferences.
Cognitive computing/architectures will be necessary to combat the PLA threat... smaller, disposable "swarms" of sensors, non-kinetic/kinetic attack options will be essential to defeating the numbers of threats while minimizing the risk of our manned systems.
To this end, if JSF with it's perception of the world, and ability to display/control information is able to direct or at least perceive what the swarms of intelligent sensors are doing, you've got yourself a true multiplier.
Each node in the battlespace must be a collaborator... it must be able to share it's understanding of the environment as well as it's sensed knowledge, it ALSO must be able to be interacted with... whether asked a question, pass along information, or change its mode of operation/aim point.
We don't need to limit our non-kinetic (EW) options to a power game — EMS finesse is relevant. Also, with just a little imagination you could conceive of numerous ways to prosecute traditional targets from new and interesting angles.
All of this said, it is certain that our interaction with information will shape our ability to deter, engage, and defeat any enemy that may be identified.
Saab is een mooie auto, ook ;D
Citaat van: Marc66 op 03/04/2012 | 13:56 uur
Saab is een mooie auto, ook ;D
Jammer van dat faillissement.... :angel:
Citaat van: Marc66 op 03/04/2012 | 13:56 uur
Saab is een mooie auto, ook ;D
Marc66 even voor de duidelijkheid de autofabriek van Saab en Saab Group zijn twee totaal verschillende bedrijven, ga nu niet offtopic raken om met deze onzin aan te komen.
http://www.saab.com/#/
http://www.saabgroup.com/
F-35 program slammed by auditor general
Defence Department criticized for not running fair competition to replace aging CF-18 fleet
By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News
Posted: Apr 2, 2012 8:02 PM NT
Last Updated: Apr 3, 2012 12:26 PM NT
The Department of National Defence did not run a fair competition to choose the F-35 fighter jet, is likely underestimating the total procurement cost, and made key decisions without required approvals or proper documentation, the auditor general concludes in his spring report released today.
Michael Ferguson's first report as auditor general is heavy-hitting, and highlights a long list of problems with how the decisions were made to buy 65 F-35 planes to replace the aging CF-18s. But it also raises questions about how much the planes will cost and what DND officials were telling Canadians, and their members of Parliament, about that pricetag.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced in July 2010 that Canada would be buying the F-35 Lightning II through its participation in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter Program, but Ferguson said it was the fighter jet of choice as far back as 2006.
"When National Defence decided to recommend the acquisition of the F-35, it was too involved with the aircraft and the JSF Program to run a fair competition. It applied the rules for standard procurement projects but prepared key documents and took key steps out of proper sequence," the report says.
"As a result, the process was inefficient and not managed well. Key decisions were made without required approvals or supporting documentation."
The report also shows that DND estimated the total cost of the F-35 program at $25 billion over 20 years when the decision was made internally to go forward with it in 2010. But in 2011, when DND responded to a report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, officials said the cost would only be $14.7 billion.
The audit found that by the end of 2006, DND and Canadian military officials were actively involved in the development of the F-35 plane and that it "was clearly the fighter jet of choice."
Integrity called into question
The proper procurement process should have kicked in then because decisions and activities were already underway that led to its eventual procurement, he said. Ferguson found that many of the steps and documents used to support the government's 2010 decision to buy the F-35 were "of little consequence" because the key questions, including whether to run an open competition, were taken much earlier, "calling into question the integrity of the process."
Ferguson also found that DND did not provide complete or timely information to senior decision-makers – or to parliamentarians. He said briefing materials did not explain the risks of relying on projections for decision-making, for example, or the risks of relying on the F-35 to replace the CF-18.
In 2008, for example, DND did an analysis of three contender aircraft including the F-35 and it determined that the Lockheed Martin model offered the best value. This analysis was pivotal in the decision to buy the F-35, the audit said, but its conclusions were given to senior decision-makers with no documentation to support those conclusions.
Ferguson said he has significant concerns about the cost information that DND officials gave to MPs. They said that cost data provided by U.S. authorities had been validated by experts and all the countries participating in the program when that wasn't "accurate," and that DND officials knew the program costs were likely to increase and didn't tell Parliament.
The auditor general also found that the estimated budget set aside for the F-35 — $25 billion — likely isn't enough to cover the costs. That budget was established without complete information, he determined, and some of the information still won't be known for years to come.
If the $25 billion proves to be too low, DND will have to find ways to cover the additional costs or ask the government for more money. Ferguson alternatively suggests the military might have to reduce the number of planes being bought, or their flying hours.
Public Works and Government Services, meanwhile, didn't carry out its responsibilities properly either. The audit found that DND didn't bring the department in until late in the process and that Public Works endorsed the key decision to sole source the acquisition of the F-35 "without the required documentation and analysis."
But Ferguson largely blames DND, for "hampering" the Public Works Department's ability to carry out its work, saying it didn't give the documentation it was asked for in a timely manner.
The government has often defended the F-35 purchase by saying it will mean billions of dollars in industrial benefits for Canadian companies, but Ferguson also casts doubt on DND's figures in his report. The estimations of contract opportunities have fluctuated wildly over the years, from as low as $5.2 billion US to as high as $16.6 billion US, and he said the projections were never independently validated.
He also said that briefing materials for ministers and decision-makers did not explain the basis for the projections and only put forward the most optimistic scenario, not the real range of potential benefits. Ferguson ends his harsh assessment of DND's role in the F-35 procurement by recommending it should refine its cost estimates and regularly provide "the actual complete costs" for the full life cycle of the aircraft.
Government promises a review
As CBC News reported Monday, Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino confirmed immediately after the tabling of the report that the government will re-examine the F-35 program in light of the findings from Ferguson's office.
The government is stripping DND of its responsibility for the program and is setting up a special secretariat of deputy ministers inside the Public Works Department to manage the program.
The funding envelope allocated for the acquisition of the F-35 will be frozen. The Treasury Board will commission an independent review of DND's acquisition and sustainment project assumptions and potential costs for the F-35, which will be made public, the government said in a statement.
"Funding will remain frozen and Canada will not purchase new aircraft until further due diligence, oversight and transparency is applied to the process of replacing the Canadian Forces' aging CF-18 fleet," Rona Ambrose, public works minister, said in the statement.
Fantino first suggested to the House defence committee in March that the purchase of the F-35 was not a foregone conclusion.
Canada would remain involved in the Joint Strike Fighter program, he said, but "the decision, the determinate decision, has not as yet been made as to whether or not we are going to actually purchase, buy, acquire, the F-35."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said later that Canada has participated in the F-35 development program with its allies for 15 years and the aerospace industry had received "hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts" because of it.
"We haven't yet signed a contract, as you know, we retain that flexibility but we are committed to continuing our aerospace sector's participation in the development of the F-35."
Canada had originally planned to buy 65 jets for $9 billion, though escalating costs for the fighter have thrown that into doubt.
P.O.V.
Should Canada drop the F-35 plan and start over? Take our survey.
The estimated lifetime cost of the entire U.S. F-35 program , the most expensive ever, has crossed the $1.5-trillion mark.
Over the course of the U.S. program, the cost of acquiring each F-35 should average $162 million.
'Hook, line and sinker'
The Canadian government estimated its 65 F-35s would cost just $75 million each to acquire, but the parliamentary budget officer has pegged that number at $148 million.
Opposition critics have long called for an open competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet.
"The government will do an enormous amount of spin today and say that they were misled by [Defence Department] officials, it wasn't their fault, and now they're going to take action," Liberal critic Marc Garneau told Heather Hiscox on CBC News Network on Tuesday morning.
"There is no question that the generals ... wanted the F-35 and drove everything towards that. But that doesn't excuse the minister of national defence and the prime minister for buying it, hook, line and sinker, without then doing their own due diligence," Garneau said.
Ferguson was appointed in November 2011, taking over from interim auditor general John Wiersema, who led the office after Sheila Fraser retired.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/04/02/f35-auditor-general-report.html
Lockheed Martin to celebrate delivery of 4,500th F-16
Posted Sunday, Apr. 01, By Bob Cox
In late 1969, a conspiracy was hatched in secret all-night meetings in Washington, D.C.-area hotel rooms that would have a profound impact on military aviation and Fort Worth.
A handful of people were at the meetings: two rebel Air Force colonels, a Pentagon analyst and a General Dynamics engineer. Their goal was to create a fighter jet -- a relatively simple, inexpensive plane that could be sold by the hundreds.
Fortunately, the conspirators succeeded, probably beyond any of their wildest dreams.
On Tuesday, Lockheed Martin will celebrate delivery of the 4,500th F-16, the direct result of those late-night meetings.
It's a huge milestone for Lockheed and Fort Worth. The F-16 is arguably the finest combat airplane of the jet age. It's the principal frontline warplane of the U.S. Air Force and of the armed forces of 25 other nations.
"It's the best air-to-air fighter. Then it proved to be the most adaptable" plane for ground attack missions as well, said Pierre Sprey, a former civilian weapons analyst in the Pentagon and frequent Defense Department critic who was one of the "fighter mafia" insurgents who went up against the military establishment to launch the F-16.
As important as its capabilities, the F-16 remains a relatively low-cost aircraft. Plane No. 4,500 is bound for Morocco. Half of the F-16s ever built have been sold to foreign nations. About 1,600 jobs at Lockheed remain tied to the program.
Beyond the quality of the airplane, perhaps the signature accomplishment of the F-16 program was the process the Pentagon used to buy it. Unlike almost every other modern military aircraft program before or since, the F-16 was designed and built quickly and was free of major technical delays.
'A great feeling'
Since the mid-1970s, the economic fortunes of Fort Worth and the surrounding region have been intertwined with the F-16. Tens of thousands of plant employees -- executives, engineers and assembly-line workers -- built careers, raised families and enjoyed comfortable lives thanks to the F-16.
It's unlikely that the old "Bomber Plant" in west Fort Worth would be operating today if not for the F-16. When General Dynamics began work on the program in 1972, the end of the F-111 bomber program was in sight, and no other contracts were in the offing.
"That plant would not exist without the F-16. No doubt about it," said Jay Miller of Arlington, an aviation historian and author of a book on the F-16.
Numerous small businesses have thrived supplying components and services to General Dynamics and Lockheed, which bought the plant in 1993.
Since the first production F-16 rolled off the assembly line in 1978, more than 3,500 have been produced in Fort Worth. Nearly 1,000 have been assembled overseas, with many Fort Worth-produced components.
Johnny Waller worked on most of those planes since getting a subassembly job in 1986. Waller, now a supervisor, says it has been a rewarding experience.
"This helped me provide for my family all these years," Waller said, and it's been a source of pride. "There's no other airplane like it. It's a great feeling to be a part of something that's been this successful."
Steve Mills, another supervisor, has spent 29 of his 30 years at the Fort Worth plant working on the F-16. In the late 1980s, at the peak of production, he once worked 30 straight days as the plant strained to produce one plane almost every day. Employment at the west Fort Worth plant topped 30,000.
"It was good money. It's been a good living," Mills said.
'Spark of innovation'
Four men could be called father of the F-16: Sprey, Air Force Cols. John Boyd and Everest "Rich" Riccioni and General Dynamics engineer Harry Hillaker.
Boyd, a fighter pilot, was the visionary leader of the fighter mafia. The group believed that the military services were wasting vast sums on complex, poorly conceived and poorly performing planes. They argued inside the Pentagon that the U.S. needed a small, low-cost fighter it could buy by the hundreds. The Air Force and Navy opposed the idea.
Hillaker was an aircraft designer. He and Boyd, neither of whom is still alive, mapped out the genetic code of the F-16. Hillaker oversaw the engineering process that brought it to life.
"We had a tremendous team," said Dwain Mayfield, a retired engineer who worked on the F-16 prototypes, "but there's a spark of innovation that one or two people bring to a program. Harry brought that spark. We all referred to him as the father of the F-16."
Riccioni in 1969 persuaded Air Force officials to grant a tiny $149,000 to study fighter jet technology. That was the seed money for what would become the F-16.
In January 1971, reform-minded Deputy Defense Secretary David Packard ordered a lightweight fighter competition. Five companies submitted proposals, including LTV Corp. in Dallas.
General Dynamics and Northrop were awarded contracts to design and build two prototypes. Their planes, the YF-16 and YF-17, would undergo a competitive flyoff. There was no guarantee that the Pentagon would buy any more aircraft.
General Dynamics rolled out the first YF-16 prototype in December 1973, months before Northrop completed its YF-17. The plane was transported to Edwards Air Force Base in California and reassembled for flight testing. It quickly became apparent that the YF-16 was something special.
Its performance "was eye-watering," said test pilot Phil Oestricher, a former Marine fighter pilot whose unplanned first flight in January 1974 is part of aviation lore. "There was no doubt in my mind this was an absolute winner."
As flight testing continued, the Pentagon said it would consider buying hundreds of the winning design.
In January 1975, the Pentagon declared General Dynamics the winner. The Air Force contracted for eight "full-scale development" planes to incorporate design changes and said it would buy 650 F-16s. Within months Belgium, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands ordered 348.
'Not on my watch'
Performance is the top reason for the F-16's longevity, said George Standridge, a Navy F/A-18 fighter pilot turned Lockheed marketing executive.
"It's a great airplane. The platform works," Standridge said.
Another reason is that with both General Dynamics and Lockheed, Standridge said, buyers have been able to count on the company's performance. "You know when you're going to get it. You know what it's going to cost."
The F-16 wasn't entirely free of problems in its early days, with some control issues discovered in early flight testing that required modifications to the design including larger horizontal tails. Over time, problems developed with chaffing of electrical wires and metal fatigue.
Production F-16s were rolling off assembly lines by 1978, just six years after the experimental program was started and were flying in some numbers with the U.S. Air Force and European nations by 1980.
Today's F-16 looks little different than the early models, but the aircraft has been modified numerous times to accommodate new technology and weapons. It's not the simple lightweight plane that Boyd and Hillaker envisioned, but it still performs.
Slightly more than 3,000 F-16s are in use today worldwide, many of them built in the early years, according to the authoritative website f-16.net. The U.S. has retired its older jets, but numerous countries have upgraded their aircraft to extend their useful lives well into the future.
Lockheed has only about 70 more orders for F-16s, which would take production into early 2016. In recent years it has picked up a couple of orders per year to guarantee production a few more years.
But Bill McHenry, Lockheed's chief F-16 salesman, said production won't end then, "not on my watch."
"We continue to find nations that have a need for fourth-generation fighters out there," he said.
Iraq is the most recent nation to join the F-16 club, ordering 18 planes last year.
'Most fulfilling'
The success of the F-16 program is in stark contrast to the F-35 that is now under development at Lockheed.
The F-16 was designed to be relatively simple. The F-35 is an incredibly complex program -- three models, one of which has a short takeoff and vertical landing. The F-35 is years behind schedule and vastly over budget, and expected foreign buyers worry that they cannot afford enough airplanes to replace their aging F-16s.
Asked about that disparity, Lockheed spokesman Joe Stout said, "It's not valid to compare development of the early F-16 to the F-35 because of the vast differences in the airplanes and programs."
Critics, however, say complexity is at the core of everything that's gone wrong with the F-35. The Pentagon and the military forgot the lessons learned on the F-16: Keep it simple, keep costs low. "The idea you can have three common airplanes and one of them is STOVL is ridiculous," Sprey said.
The success of the F-16 is a source of immense pride to the men who helped launch the program four decades ago.
"I've talked to some of my colleagues about it," Mayfield said, and "the most fulfilling thing is that we helped change the face of tactical fighter aviation around the world."
Bob Cox, 817-390-7723
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/01/3852113/lockheed-martin-to-celebrate-delivery.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
Wat is er fout aan het pimpen van de huidige F-16?
24 landen vliegen met het toestel, het moet dan toch wel een betrouwbaar toestel zijn, toch?
Citaat van: Marc66 op 03/04/2012 | 19:48 uur
Wat is er fout aan het pimpen van de huidige F-16?
24 landen vliegen met het toestel, het moet dan toch wel een betrouwbaar toestel zijn, toch?
Niets... als we F16's hadden gehad vanaf block 40/50, inmiddels is het vrijwel gedaan met het updaten.
De Amerkanen zullen 300 á 350 van hun meest recente en beste F16's een end-life update geven, dit zijn van origine een volledig andere toestellen en niet meer te vergelijken met de "oer-uitvoering" die Nederland heeft aangeschaft.
South Korea receives final two F-15K fighters
By: Firdaus Hashim Singapore
The Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) has taken delivery of its final two Boeing F-15K fighter aircraft.
The delivery was made on 2 April at the Daegu air base and all of the F-15Ks were delivered on cost and on schedule, says Boeing.
Boeing will continue to provide long-term support to the air force's fleet of F-15Ks through the performance-based logistics (PBL) sustainment contract it received from South Korea's Defence Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA). Companies supporting the PBL contract include Hyundai Glovis, Korea Aerospace Industries and Samsung Thales.
"Boeing is proud to have worked with the ROKAF to ensure that their F-15Ks included all the capability and power necessary to defend their homeland through 2040 and beyond," says Boeing F-15 programme vice-president Roger Besancenez.
South Korea chose Boeing's F-15K in June 2002 for a supply contract for 40 of the fighter jets. Boeing delivered its first two F-15Ks in October 2005. It won an additional contract to produce 21 additional F-15Ks in April 2008 as part of the country's Next Fighter II programme.
Boeing has proposed the F-15 Silent Eagle - which shares a great deal in common with the F-15K - for Seoul's F-X III requirement. Its rivals in the F-X III are the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Eurofighter Typhoon.
Bids for the F-X III competition are due by 18 June, with a decision possible by late 2012. DAPA did not specify the number of aircraft it intends to obtain under F-X III, but industry sources have previously said the number is around 60. The aircraft will replace South Korea's McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms.
Industry observers feel the race is primarily between the F-35 and F-15SE. At the Seoul air show in October 2011, Lockheed and Boeing representatives stressed the respective merits of their aircraft.
Lockheed highlighted the ability of the stealthy F-35 to penetrate enemy airspace, while Boeing emphasised the F-15SE's heavy weapons payload and new low observable features that would be of great utility in the early days of a war.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-receives-final-two-f-15k-fighters-370365/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/04/2012 | 19:45 uur
Lockheed Martin to celebrate delivery of 4,500th F-16. Posted Sunday, Apr. 01, By Bob Cox
In late 1969, a conspiracy was hatched in secret all-night meetings in Washington, D.C.-area hotel rooms that would have a profound impact on military aviation and Fort Worth.
A handful of people were at the meetings: two rebel Air Force colonels, a Pentagon analyst and a General Dynamics engineer. Their goal was to create a fighter jet -- a relatively simple, inexpensive plane that could be sold by the hundreds.
Fortunately, the conspirators succeeded, probably beyond any of their wildest dreams.
Four men could be called father of the F-16: Sprey, Air Force Cols. John Boyd and Everest "Rich" Riccioni and General Dynamics engineer Harry Hillaker.
Boyd, a fighter pilot, was the visionary leader of the fighter mafia. The group believed that the military services were wasting vast sums on complex, poorly conceived and poorly performing planes. They argued inside the Pentagon that the U.S. needed a small, low-cost fighter it could buy by the hundreds. The Air Force and Navy opposed the idea.
Hillaker was an aircraft designer. He and Boyd, neither of whom is still alive, mapped out the genetic code of the F-16. Hillaker oversaw the engineering process that brought it to life.
Was er maar een nieuwe "Fighter Maffia". Die een eenvoudig, klein, licht dus goedkoop jachtvliegtuig kunnen ontwerpen.
Een nieuw jachtvliegtuig dat niet in 20 jaar ontworpen en ontwikkeld wordt. Maar in slechts 5 jaar tijd, als men de snelle ontwerp-, en ontwikkelings methodieken gebruikt die worden toegepast bij de auto-, en Formule 1 industrie.
'Beetje jammer', dat dit niet de tijd is voor visionaire ideeen, maar grote onverschilligheid en besluiteloosheid.
Citaat van: Poleme op 04/04/2012 | 11:29 uur
Was er maar een nieuwe "Fighter Maffia". Die een eenvoudig, klein, licht dus goedkoop jachtvliegtuig kunnen ontwerpen.
Een nieuw jachtvliegtuig dat niet in 20 jaar ontworpen en ontwikkeld wordt. Maar in slechts 5 jaar tijd, als men de snelle ontwerp-, en ontwikkelings methodieken gebruikt die worden toegepast bij de auto-, en Formule 1 industrie.
'Beetje jammer', dat dit niet de tijd is voor visionaire ideeen, maar grote onverschilligheid en besluiteloosheid.
Helaas maar waar.
Citaat van: Poleme op 04/04/2012 | 11:29 uur
Was er maar een nieuwe "Fighter Maffia". Die een eenvoudig, klein, licht dus goedkoop jachtvliegtuig kunnen ontwerpen.
Een nieuw jachtvliegtuig dat niet in 20 jaar ontworpen en ontwikkeld wordt.
Poleme, The Future is Gripen NG ;)
THE F-35 STEALTH FIGHTER PROGRAM:
How the War Economy Contributes to Exacerbating the Social Crisis
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, April 4, 2012
There is mounting controversy regarding the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter jet from US defence giant Lockheed Martin. The Pentagon has commissioned the purchase of 2,443 aircraft "to provide the bulk of its tactical airpower for the US Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy over the coming decades". This massive procurement of advanced weapons systems is part of America's "Global War", largely directed against China, Russia, North Korea and Iran.
The overall cost of the program to the US military is estimated at a staggering $1.51 trillion over the so called life cycle of the program, namely $618 million per plane. (Shalal-Esa, Andrea. "Government sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.51 trillion." Reuters, 2 April 2012).
Several of America's close allies including the UK, Australia, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Israel, and Japan are slated to purchase the F-35 stealth aircraft.
The economic and social implications of this program are potentially devastating. Apart from the fact that the fighter planes will be used in upcoming US-NATO wars. the procurement of advanced weapons at tax payers expense will contribute to exacerbating the ongoing fiscal crisis. Unless they are funded by an increase in the public debt, these massive expenditures on advanced weapons systems will require the continued adoption of concurrent austerity measures over a period of up to thirty years, at the expense of an entire generation.
The costs of military procurement are always at the expense of social programs, public investment in infrastructure, employment creation in the civilian economy. Conversely, very few jobs will be created by the defence contractors. The cost of creating one job in America's weapons industry (2001) varies between 25 and 66 million dollars per job. (Michel Chossudovsky, War is Good for Business, Global Research, September 2001)
In the US and NATO countries, drastic budgetary measures are currently being applied with a view to financing the "War economy". These economic measures --adopted at the crossroads of a Worldwide economic depression-- are also contributing to spearheading entire national economies into bankruptcy, with devastating social consequences.
Canada's F-35 Program
In Canada, the Conservative government had initially committed itself to an overall cost of the F-35 stealth fighter program of 9 billion dollars involving the purchase of 65 aircraft. This figure of 9 billion dollars was a political cover-up. Known and documented, the real cost of the program was much larger. Auditor-General Michael Ferguson's report presented to the House of Commons (April 2), confirmed that the cost of Canada's F-35 programme "could reach $30 billion over three decades", namely $461 million per plane:
"In March 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) provided Parliament with a report on the estimated acquisition and sustainment [sic] costs associated with Canada's planned purchase of 65 F-35 fighter jets. Shortly thereafter, the Department of National Defence (DND) responded to the PBO report. In that response, DND claimed that the total costs associated with the F-35 program would be approximately $15 billion. However, the recent auditor general's report reveals that, in June 2010, DND's true cost estimate was approximately $25 billion -- representing a difference of $10 billion. The inclusion of this difference would bring DND's cost estimate in line with that of the PBO,"
It is worth noting that the estimated unit cost in Canada's program ($461 million per aircraft) which has been the object of political controversy is substantially lower than that of the US (estimated at $661 million) and Norway (estimated to be of the order of $769 million over the "operational lifetime" of the F-35 aircraft). (Testimony of Rear Admiral Arne Røksund, "41st Parliament, 1st Session, Standing Committee on National Defence." Parliament of Canada, 24 November 2011).
Ottawa's 2012 Austerity Budget
Careful timing: The 30 billion dollar cost of the F-35 programme was known prior to the presentation of the budget. The report of Canada's Auditor General (April 3), however, regarding the cost overrun was only made public ex post facto, five days after the budget speech by Finance Minister Flaherty on March 29.
The 2012 Canadian federal budget presented a gruesome scenario of austerity measures requiring massive layoffs of federal government employees, drastic cuts in spending including pension funds and the curtailment of federal provincial transfers. In contrast, the issue of spiralling defense spending resulting from the F-35 fighter program is not acknowledged, as if it has no bearing on the structure of public expenditure.
The government had announced drastic austerity measures, but these budgetary measures apply largely to non-military spending. (The federal budget estimates indicate a modest cut in defence expenditure, which do not include predictable overruns in the cost of weapons procurement).
The crucial question: How does this multibillion dollar F-35 project affect the 2012 federal budget, which is largely predicated on a sizeable curtailment of "civilian" as opposed to "military" expenditures?
The issue of the budget deficit could be resolved overnight by reining in the war economy. But that "solution" would not be in the interest of achieving "World peace" and "global security".
"Guns versus Butter": How does this spiralling defence expenditure allocated to the purchase of advanced weapons systems affect all other categories of civilian government expenditure? How does it affect public investment in the civilian economy?
These questions are of crucial significance for the people of the US, whose military is spending a staggering $1.5 trillion on the F-35 programme. It has similar implications in the nine countries which decided to purchase these expensive planes, while concurrently implementing "strong economic medicine" to finance the predictable cost overruns of military spending.
"War is good for business" (for the defence contractors) yet at the same it spearheads the civilian economy into bankruptcy.
Nowhere in the Canadian federal budget is the issue of the F 35s and its staggering overall cost of 30 billion dollars mentioned. That's an average cost of $461 million dollars per plane, including the "flyaway" purchase plus the so-called sustainment costs (maintenance, operating costs and related investments associated with the F-35 program).
Canada's welfare state is collapsing, health care is in the process of being privatised, primary and secondary education is under-funded. Universities are in a state of crisis with rising tuition fees. Yet at no point in the debate on the budget has the issue of the war economy been raised. How does the war economy backlash on people's lives. How does it undermine and destabilize the civilian economy.
The austerity measures are in part implemented with a view to financing the war economy.
University students in Quebec have been involved in mass demonstrations regarding the hike of tuition fees implemented by the provincial government.
Yet at no time has the issue of the encroachment of military spending on social programs been raised. The purchase of advanced weapons systems will inevitably be at the expense of federal provincial transfers which contribute to the financing of health and education.
Curtailing the F35 stealth fighter program would immediately make more money available in support of Quebec's university students. In fact the cost associated with one F 35 fighter plane (461 million dollars) would release more than enough resources to finance the hike in tuition fees...
The protest movement against government austerity measures applied in the US, Canada and the European Union must address the issue of the US-NATO led war.
The F-35 stealth aircraft are not weapons of peace. They are part of the killing machine. They are slated to be used against China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
They are "weapons of mass destruction" to be used in the Pentagon's "long war".
The other "side of the coin" pertains to Guns versu Butter, namely the relationship between the "civilian economy" and the "war economy".
War and the neoliberal economic policy agenda are part of an integrated process.
The staggering cost of these advanced weapons is contributing to the demise of what is left of the Welfare State, not to mention the impoverishment of an entire generation in a large number of NATO member states.
Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30144
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/04/2012 | 20:15 uur
THE F-35 STEALTH FIGHTER PROGRAM:
It is worth noting that the estimated unit cost in Canada's program ($461 million per aircraft) which has been the object of political controversy is substantially lower than that of the US (estimated at $661 million) and Norway (estimated to be of the order of $769 million over the "operational lifetime" of the F-35 aircraft).
Astronomisch maar als ik de vergelijking maak met een Eurofighter:
Aanschaf 120+ mjn euro
Prijs per vlieguur: 74.0000 euro
Aanname 200 uur per jaar, gedurende 30 jaar = 444 mjn euro
Totaal (aanname) 444 + 120 = 564 mjn euro ( 741,5 mjn USD volgens omreken koers van 4/4/212).
Dan toch maar een ander modelletje?
De F15SE
Aanschaf 76 mjn euro
Prijs per vlieguur: 21.500 euro (F15E)
Aanname 200 uur per jaar, gedurende 30 jaar = 129 mjn euro
Totaal (aanname) 76 + 129 = 205 mjn euro (269,5 mjn USD)
Wat klopt er niet?
F-35s won't deliver: defence expert
Rebecca Lindell, Global News : Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:30 PM
Opposition calls for the Harper government to subject the F-35s to a competitive bidding process are being buoyed by an American defence expert who said the jets are "a gigantic disappointment."
A scathing report from the auditor general found the government failed to run a fair competition to replace its aging CF-18 fleet, kept key information secret, and underestimated the costs of the project by at least $9 billion.
But the costs and the procurement process aren't the only things that should be scrutinized, according to one American defence expert.
"You should get an audit of the airplane," said Winslow Wheeler at the Center for Defense Information, an American defence think-tank that has been monitoring the U.S.-led F-35 program carefully.
"We already know that the performance of this airplane, even if it were to perform up to its original specifications, is a gigantic disappointment," Wheeler said.
In announcing the government's decision to buy 65 F-35s, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the aircraft is the best.
The Department of National Defence has described the F-35 as the sole fifth-generation stealth fighter, capable of avoiding enemies and surviving complex missions.
Despite the glitzy words, Wheeler said the F-35 simply can't do what it claims, especially when it comes to stealth.
"What stealth really means is that the detection rate in front of radars is reduced, not eliminated, and it is only reduced for some radars at some angles," he said.
Add a lower sortie rate and inferior aerodynamics, and the F-35s are simply a step backward, according to Wheeler.
"You've got lots of alternatives," he said. "Start over again, do a competitive fly-off of successful designs, let the F-35 compete, if it can get an airplane in the air, and proceed."
Both the New Democrats and the Liberals want to see the government open a competitive bidding process to replace the C-18.
"We need to have a complete review of what our needs are beyond 2020," Liberal
interim leader Bob Rae told reporter on Wednesday. "Once that review has been completed and the government has made a decision, Parliament has made a decision effectively, then we need to have a tender, an open tender."
Doubts about the F-35's capabilities and delivery date have been swirling for months, fueled by reports of ongoing technological complications.
Last month the United States Government Accountability Office reported the jet's high-tech helmet meant to project information onto the pilot's visor wasn't functional. The same report found only four per cent of the mission system requirements for full capability had been verified.
Other issues slowing the jet's development include problems with the power system, cracks in the aircraft's frame and inferior satellite capability for in Arctic settings.
Even if the Conservatives announced a new competition, the F-35 would still come back as the winner, according to Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.
"It'll come back and say there is no other competitor," he said, disputing Wheeler's claim that there are alternatives.
Huebert said the "theoretical" alternatives are either outdated like the F/A-18 Super Hornet or just as expensive like the Eurofighter.
The Conservatives have softened their language on their commitment to the F-35s, saying they would examine other aircraft. They have stopped short of
opening a tender.
"We will continue now, with the guidance of Public Works, to move forward with a proper acquisition process to replace the aging CF-18s," said MacKay on Wednesday, referring to the newly established F-35 Secretariat at Public Works.
Born in the wake of the auditor general's report, the secretariat is mandated to review the F-35 project, its costs and its compliance with procurement policies before the government signs any contracts to replace the CF-18s.
http://www.globalnews.ca/fighting+f-35s/6442615108/story.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/04/2012 | 20:48 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/04/2012 | 20:15 uur
THE F-35 STEALTH FIGHTER PROGRAM:
It is worth noting that the estimated unit cost in Canada's program ($461 million per aircraft) which has been the object of political controversy is substantially lower than that of the US (estimated at $661 million) and Norway (estimated to be of the order of $769 million over the "operational lifetime" of the F-35 aircraft).
Astronomisch maar als ik de vergelijking maak met een Eurofighter:
Aanschaf 120+ mjn euro
Prijs per vlieguur: 74.0000 euro
Aanname 200 uur per jaar, gedurende 30 jaar = 444 mjn euro
Totaal (aanname) 444 + 120 = 564 mjn euro ( 741,5 mjn USD volgens omreken koers van 4/4/212).
Dan toch maar een ander modelletje?
De F15SE
Aanschaf 76 mjn euro
Prijs per vlieguur: 21.500 euro (F15E)
Aanname 200 uur per jaar, gedurende 30 jaar = 129 mjn euro
Totaal (aanname) 76 + 129 = 205 mjn euro (269,5 mjn USD)
Wat klopt er niet?
Rekensom klopt wel, alleen de "lifetime" van de toestellen ? .... 30 jaar , 55 jaar
Wat houden de Amerikanen aan 55 jaar .. $661 miljoen US Dollar = € 502, 4 miljoen Euro
Als we het rekensommetje andersom doen ? (met gegevens uit dit topic posting 1158)
Voorbeeld 1 :
Vlieg-uur-kosten : $ 35.200 US Dollar x 200 uur = $ 7,04 miljoen US Dollar per jaar
Voor 55 jaar = $ 387,2 miljoen, dan zou de aankoop toestel $ 661 miljoen - $ 387,2 miljoen = $ 273,8 miljoen USDollar per stuk (€ 208 miljoen Euro)
Voorbeeld 2 :
Aankoop : $ 130 miljoen US Dollar per toestel
Dus totaal vlieg-kosten = $ 661 - $ 130 miljoen = $ 531 miljoen US Dollar voor 55 jaar = $ 9,65 miljoen per jaar aan vlieg-uur-kosten
vlieg-uur : $ 35.200 US Dollar, dus $ 9,65 miljoen / $ 35.200 = 274 vlieg-uren per jaar
Door voorbeeld 2 nog eens door te rekenen, maar dan met Aankoop : $ 84,4 miljoen US Dollar, dan zou er uitkomen dat ze 298 vlieg-uren per jaar begroten, dit lijkt me erg veel
Ik denk dat de US rekend met ca. 240 vlieg-uren per jaar, dit ingevuld in voorbeeld 1, dan zou de aankoop van een toestel $ 196 miljoen US dollar kosten (€ 149 miljoen Euro)
Citaat van: Harald op 05/04/2012 | 09:34 uur
Voorbeeld 1 :
Vlieg-uur-kosten : $ 35.200 US Dollar x 200 uur = $ 7,04 miljoen US Dollar per jaar
Voor 55 jaar = $ 387,2 miljoen, dan zou...
Je realiseert je wel dat je er nu voor het gemak even vanuit gaat dat het airframe 37.5 % langer meegaat? Namelijk 11.000 uur in plaats van de geplande 8.000 uur.
Daarbij heb je een aantal verschillende invalshoeken die je kan kiezen. Je kunt kijken naar de totale kosten om een aantal uur 'airtime' te hebben over een bepaalde periode, dan zullen de vlieguurkosten een stuk hoger uitvallen. Je kunt ook kijken naar alleen de directe exploitatiekosten van een uur vliegen, waarbij je eigenlijk alleen uitgaat van onderhoud en middelen(brandstof e.d.) verbruik, dat is wat de Amerikanen doen begrijp ik.
Maar naast aanschaf en de directe exploitatiekosten, zijn er meer kosten gemoeid met het programma, denk bijvoorbeeld aan een MLU, en die valt in jou voorbeeld nu weg.
Citaat van: dudge op 05/04/2012 | 09:45 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 05/04/2012 | 09:34 uur
Voorbeeld 1 :
Vlieg-uur-kosten : $ 35.200 US Dollar x 200 uur = $ 7,04 miljoen US Dollar per jaar
Voor 55 jaar = $ 387,2 miljoen, dan zou...
Je realiseert je wel dat je er nu voor het gemak even vanuit gaat dat het airframe 37.5 % langer meegaat? Namelijk 11.000 uur in plaats van de geplande 8.000 uur.
Amerikanen rekenen met levensduur van 55 jaar in hun berekeningen
Citaat van: Harald op 05/04/2012 | 10:06 uur
Amerikanen rekenen met levensduur van 55 jaar in hun berekeningen
Kun je quoten waar dat staat? Ik heb namelijk alleen gelezen dat het programma een levensduur heeft van 55 jaar, wat de F16 waarschijnlijk ook haalt trouwens. Het individuele airframe moet gewoon 8.000 uur meegaan. Verspreid over 55 jaar betekend dat 145 uur per jaar. Best mogelijk voor een ANG kist misschien, maar zie het voor de AF kisten niet gebeuren. Waar komt dan de 'we gaan er 55 jaar mee vliegen' vandaan? De kisten worden niet allemaal in hetzelfde jaar geleverd. Als de laatste F35 in 2030 wordt geleverd, moet dat toestel ook nog 30 tot 40 jaar meegaan.
Citaat van: dudge op 05/04/2012 | 10:17 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 05/04/2012 | 10:06 uur
Amerikanen rekenen met levensduur van 55 jaar in hun berekeningen
Kun je quoten waar dat staat? Ik heb namelijk alleen gelezen dat het programma een levensduur heeft van 55 jaar, wat de F16 waarschijnlijk ook haalt trouwens. Het individuele airframe moet gewoon 8.000 uur meegaan. Verspreid over 55 jaar betekend dat 145 uur per jaar. Best mogelijk voor een ANG kist misschien, maar zie het voor de AF kisten niet gebeuren. Waar komt dan de 'we gaan er 55 jaar mee vliegen' vandaan? De kisten worden niet allemaal in hetzelfde jaar geleverd. Als de laatste F35 in 2030 wordt geleverd, moet dat toestel ook nog 30 tot 40 jaar meegaan.
CORRECTIE :Het totale F-35 programma heeft een duur van 55 jaar :http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/march/0330hq-f-35-sar.html
Maar het airframe van een F-35 gaat 30 jaar mee :And F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova told DoDBuzz why this analysis had to cover 55 years' worth of costs:
The expected service life of an F-35 is estimated to be 30 years. The last jet to roll off the production line is expected to happen in 2036. Add 30 years of service life to that last jet and you're in 2066. Subtract 2066 — 2011 (the year the first production F-35 was delivered) and one gets 55 years of production F-35s in the skies — aka a "full life-cycle cost analysis."Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/02/the-pentagons-self-inflicted-wound/#ixzz1r9XfSZun
DoDBuzz.com
Dus de gemaakte berekeningen met 55 jaar gaan niet op, dus hier moet een correctie op toegepast worden, wat dus in de berekeningen een negatieve invloed heeft op de kosten van de F-35.
Citaat van: Harald op 05/04/2012 | 10:35 uur
Citaat van: dudge op 05/04/2012 | 10:17 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 05/04/2012 | 10:06 uur
Amerikanen rekenen met levensduur van 55 jaar in hun berekeningen
Kun je quoten waar dat staat? Ik heb namelijk alleen gelezen dat het programma een levensduur heeft van 55 jaar, wat de F16 waarschijnlijk ook haalt trouwens. Het individuele airframe moet gewoon 8.000 uur meegaan. Verspreid over 55 jaar betekend dat 145 uur per jaar. Best mogelijk voor een ANG kist misschien, maar zie het voor de AF kisten niet gebeuren. Waar komt dan de 'we gaan er 55 jaar mee vliegen' vandaan? De kisten worden niet allemaal in hetzelfde jaar geleverd. Als de laatste F35 in 2030 wordt geleverd, moet dat toestel ook nog 30 tot 40 jaar meegaan.
CORRECTIE :
Het totale F-35 programma heeft een duur van 55 jaar :
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/march/0330hq-f-35-sar.html
Maar het airframe van een F-35 gaat 30 jaar mee :
And F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova told DoDBuzz why this analysis had to cover 55 years' worth of costs:
The expected service life of an F-35 is estimated to be 30 years. The last jet to roll off the production line is expected to happen in 2036. Add 30 years of service life to that last jet and you're in 2066. Subtract 2066 — 2011 (the year the first production F-35 was delivered) and one gets 55 years of production F-35s in the skies — aka a "full life-cycle cost analysis."Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/04/02/the-pentagons-self-inflicted-wound/#ixzz1r9XfSZun
DoDBuzz.com
Dus de gemaakte berekeningen met 55 jaar gaan niet op, dus hier moet een correctie op toegepast worden, wat dus in de berekeningen een negatieve invloed heeft op de kosten van de F-35.
Dus voor de correctie-berekening houden we aan :
totaal vlieg-uren : 8000 vlieg-uren = 30 jaar ( 267 vlieg-uren per jaar)
vlieg-uur-kosten : $ 35.200,00 per vlieg-uur
$ 35.200 x 8000 vlieguren = $ 281,6 miljoen US Dollar (alleen vlieg-uur-kosten voor 30 jaar)
Aankoop : $ 130 miljoen per toestel
Totaal : $ 281,6 + $ 130 miljoen = $ 411,6 miljoen ( € 312,8 miljoen Euro) per toestel voor 30 jaar
Ruim onder de bedragen welke genoemd worden in citaat :
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/04/2012 | 20:15 uur
THE F-35 STEALTH FIGHTER PROGRAM:
It is worth noting that the estimated unit cost in Canada's program ($461 million per aircraft) which has been the object of political controversy is substantially lower than that of the US (estimated at $661 million) and Norway (estimated to be of the order of $769 million over the "operational lifetime" of the F-35 aircraft).
Moeten er nog toegevoegde kosten bijgeplust worden voor MLU e.d.
maar dan nog zijn de verschillend erg groot !
Su-35 fighters made 500 test flights
Moscow, April 4. The 500th test flight was made on the Su-35 flight tests program. The aircraft was piloted by the Hero of Russia colonel Sergei Bogdan, the distinguished test pilot. In February 2008 it was him who took off for the first time in that modern super-maneuverable multi-functional fighter.
At present, the Joint State Tests (JST) of the airplane are going on. In March this year the fourth production Su-35S was delivered to the JST. The Su-35-1 and 2 carried out preliminary flight tests, during which the main established flight and technical characteristics of the on-board equipment and super maneuverability features were fully confirmed, stability and controllability characteristics, the characteristics of the power plant and the work of the navigation system were tested.
The plane reached the maximum ground-level speed of 1,400 km/h, speed at altitude — 2400 km/h, the ceiling — 18 thousand meters. The detection range of targets in the "air-to-air" mode is over 400 km. This is significantly higher than that of the combat aircraft currently in service. The onboard OLS (optical locator station) can detect and track multiple targets at ranges exceeding 80 km. The aircraft complex is ready to undergo tests for combat use.
The analysis of the amount of work already done allows a conclusion that Su-35/Su-35S has a much better flight characteristics compared to analogue aircraft in service. The airborne equipment of the plane allows solving a wider range of tasks set by tactical and technical requirements.
The potential characteristics incorporated in the aircraft will allow it to exceed all tactical fighters of the 4th and 4 + generations, such as "Rafale" and EF 2000, modernized fighters like the F-15, F-16, F-18, F-35 and to counter the F-22A fighter.
The serial production of the Su-35S is going on at the Sukhoi's Y.A.Gagarin Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KNAAPO) in accordance with the state contract signed in 2009 to deliver 48 aircraft to the Russian Ministry of Defence by the year 2015.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=4834
Die Noorse 769 miljard dollar komst van $40.000.000.000 gedeeld door 52 toestellen.
Kom je op iets van €585 miljoen euro per toestel.
International JSF team will remain intact, Donley says
By Carlo Munoz - 04/05/12 01:49 PM ET
The international coalition collaborating on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will remain intact, despite the tremendous fiscal pressures facing those countries.
The eight foreign countries and the United States are "all in different places" in terms of economic stability, particularly those in Western Europe, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said on Thursday.
However, these realities have not swayed any of those countries from their commitments to the JSF, which is now the most expensive military weapons program in Pentagon history.
Partner nations on the JSF include the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark and Norway.
Those countries "have a good bead" on what steps they need to take to keep the JSF program going in their own governments, Donley said.
His comments echoed those made by DOD spokesman George Little during a Tuesday press conference at the Pentagon.
The Air Force chief noted that countries outside the original nine JSF members have approached DOD with interest about participating in the program.
Japan is the latest nation to join the group. It chose the JSF as its new fighter jet last December.
South Korea is also rumored to have expressed interest in buying the next-generation fighter.
But recent difficulties experienced by half of the original JSF coalition members could have a chilling effect on that growing interest.
A scathing report claiming Canadian defense officials failed to inform top government decision makers "of the problems and associated risks" with buying the F-35 has Ottawa questioning whether it will continue with the JSF.
Draconian defense spending cuts in the United Kingdom already have London throttling back its planned purchases of the F-35.
Officials from German Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration on Tuesday ruled out Spain as the next European Union member to need a bailout, according to Reuters.
But it is widely assumed that Italy will be the next country to join Greece and Ireland as the recipient of an EU-financed bailout.
All these factors could lead to a number of JSF partners dramatically ramping down their participation on the fighter or leaving the program altogether.
That said, allowing those countries to work their way through those fiscal challenges while keeping them on board the JSF is a concern, Donley noted.
But dealing with those types of issues, while trying to get the U.S. fleet of F-35s flying is just "part of what managing an international program is all about," he said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/army/220175-international-jsf-team-will-remain-intact-donley-says-
De Gripen E/F (NG) heeft ook zo haar problemen.
Voor Zwitserland (en Zweden) zal de Gripen pas rond 2020 beschikbaar zijn (ipv 2015)
Werden die Schweden zur Kasse gebeten?
http://www.blick.ch/news/politik/werden-die-schweden-zur-kasse-gebeten-id1836479.html
Canada's long, troubled history with F-35 fighter jets
daniel leblanc
Ottawa— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Apr. 04, 2012 10:14PM EDT
A look at what happened leading up to the F-35 controversy, who is responsible and what's next
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-long-troubled-history-with-f-35-fighter-jets/article2392591/
Global View
Canada not alone in rethinking F-35 purchase
paul koring
WASHINGTON— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Apr. 05, 2012 8:16PM EDT
Canadian hedging on its original pledge to buy 65 of the stealthy F-35 multi-role warplanes was only the latest in a series of second-guessing, cancellations and delayed deliveries as other countries take a hard look at multi-billion contracts.
Stunningly expensive and half-a-decade behind schedule already, the $1.45-trillion program to build more than 3,000 of the sophisticated fight-bombers for the U.S. military and up to a dozen allied air forces is flying into serious turbulence both at home and abroad.
Cancellations will drive the cost of all F-35s higher as the entire program is predicated on volume production. Losing 'partner' countries won't kill the F-35. But despite powerful congressional support – 47 states have a slice of the program – the F-35 is also becoming a juicy target for some inside the Beltway. The latest cost estimate is a staggering $161-million per aircraft, including engine and assuming 3,000 are built.
Australia Initial plans to buy up to 100 F-35s were scaled back after the urgent need to replace the Australian Air Force's obsolete bombers became clear. So 24 updated F-18s were purchased. A dozen F-35s were ordered with a second tranche of 58 supposedly to follow. Last month Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the delivery of those 58 would be delayed.
Britain After first announcing it wanted 138 of the most-complicated F-35 variant, one that can land vertically like a helicopter and is the U.S. Marines' version, Britain changed its order to the U.S. Navy aircraft-carrier version that was supposed to be 25-per-cent cheaper. Now with costs escalating on that model too, the government may switch back – even though British test pilots are already flying a pre-production model in Texas. And many analysts expect the total number to be cut by 30 per cent or more. The government said it won't decide until 2015. Firm orders to date: three.
Israel In 2010, Israel ordered 20 F-35s from Lockheed Martin at a cost of $2.8-billion but isn't expecting deliveries until 2017. Although Israel wants 75 of the fifth-generation warplane to maintain its clear air warfare superiority in the Middle East, it is already looking at alternatives including refurbished F-15s from Boeing.
Italy Cash-strapped Italy, which originally announced that it wanted 130 F-35s – but didn't sign a contract – has already slashed the planned purchase to 90 of the deep-strike, stealthy fighter-bombers. More cuts may follow.
Japan After announcing only last December that it would buy 42 F-35s, with the first four delivered in 2017, Japan's Defence Minister Naoki Tanaka publicly warned last month that delays or price increases would imperil the entire contract. "We would need to consider as a potential option matters like cancelling our orders and starting a new selection process if that is the case," he said. Losing Japan, with more than 300 warplanes, many of them needing replacement, would be a major blow, as the order for 42 F-35s was widely seen as an initial buy.
Netherlands The first Dutch F-35 was completed this month but the planned purchase of 84 aircraft remains in serious jeopardy. A Dutch government study questions the cost estimates and some defence analysts suggest only 40 aircraft are needed to replace Holland's aging F-16s.
Norway Even as it delayed final deliveries of the 52 F-35s it plans to buy by 2024, the Norwegian government gave the troubled warplane program a rare vote of confidence last month. "Despite changes made by other partner nations, Norway finds that its previous and robust real-cost estimates remain accurate," it said, adding it would take its first four aircraft earlier than expected.
Turkey Two months ago, Turkey's Defence Minister Ismet Yilmaz confirmed plans to buy 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Two of them, he said, will be delivered in 2015. His statement seemed to resolve a long-simmering dispute over the highly classified source code of the software that is at the heart of the aircraft. A year earlier Ankara was threatening to put the whole deal on hold if the code was hidden from it.
/Other likely buyers They include Saudi Arabia, among the richest and most regular buyers of U.S. big-ticket military hardware, South Korea, Singapore and Brazil.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-not-alone-in-rethinking-f-35-purchase/article2393714/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Politics&utm_content=2393714
The Boeing Company and the U.S. Navy have successfully completed a flight test of the prototype Distributed Targeting System-Networked (DTS-N) on a Super Hornet.
ST. LOUIS, April 5, 2012 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and the U.S. Navy have successfully completed a flight test of the prototype Distributed Targeting System-Networked (DTS-N) on a Super Hornet. The system is designed to enhance the F/A-18E/F fighter jet's targeting capabilities.
The test took place in late 2011 at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division Advanced Weapons Lab in China Lake, Calif., and was conducted by Air Test and Evaluation Squadron VX-31.
DTS-N is based on the Boeing Adaptive Architecture developed by the company's Phantom Works division. It expands the capabilities of the soon-to-be-operational F/A-18E/F Distributed Targeting System by providing a dramatic increase in processing power and the ability to securely connect to advanced airborne networks. The framework is an open systems environment that allows for the swift interchange of software and hardware to support multiple missions.
"The success of this test validates the rapid prototyping work being carried out by our Phantom Works teams," said James Dodd, vice president, Advanced Boeing Military Aircraft, a division of Boeing Phantom Works. "This leading-edge networking architecture will support our advanced aircraft and systems to better meet the needs of our customers and ensure the success of critical missions."
The DTS-N test was the first major activity completed under the F/A-18 Flight Plan Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between the Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division (NAWC-WD) and Boeing.
"This unprecedented approach to cooperative cost-sharing and development is a tremendous step toward demonstrating open systems architecture that meets the customer's needs in the 21st century," said Shelley Lavender, Boeing vice president and general manager of Global Strike.
"With the successful first flight of the DTS-N under the CRADA, the Navy, Boeing, and its industry team have laid the groundwork for a technical and business environment that supports prototyping future flight plan acceleration initiatives," said Harlan Kooima, the F-18 Integrated Product Team lead at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake.
During the flight test, an application developed by Phantom Works provided an auto-routing capability, while a separate Navy application developed by the NAWC-WD Weapon Engagement Office was used to generate Autonomous Target Acquisition templates for a captive-carried Joint Standoff weapon. The system also has robust provisions to address emerging information assurance and network security requirements. Harris Corp. provided flight-qualified hardware in support of the test.
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 62,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2206
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 06/04/2012 | 08:22 uur
Netherlands The first Dutch F-35 was completed this month but the planned purchase of 84 aircraft remains in serious jeopardy. A Dutch government study questions the cost estimates and some defence analysts suggest only 40 aircraft are needed to replace Holland's aging F-16s.
85 gaan het er never nooit niet worden 55 zou al een min of meer godswonder zijn. Maar wat ik me vooral afvraag is: naar WELKE defensie analist(en) wordt hier verwezen? Of bedoelt men eerder met het gereserveerde geld kunnen er maximaal 40 worden gekocht?
Citaat van: Mourning op 06/04/2012 | 10:53 uur
85 gaan het er never nooit niet worden 55 zou al een min of meer godswonder zijn. Maar wat ik me vooral afvraag is: naar WELKE defensie analist(en) wordt hier verwezen? Of bedoelt men eerder met het gereserveerde geld kunnen er maximaal 40 worden gekocht?
Goede vraag.
Ik ben al blij als het aantal nieuwe vliegtuigen enigszins in de buurt van de Noorse Order komt (en ik vrees dat dat geldt voor elk willekeurige type)
Met dit aantal hoeft men zich in Leeuwarden geen illusie meer te maken, zij kunnen zich voorbereiden op het (haast) onvermeidelijke. (hierbij kan De Kooy zich wellicht verheugen op een uitbreiding)
Stop toch met die onzin van het (zelf) ontwikkelen van een fighter. Ik denk dat er best al ergens een goede fighter bestaat die al helemaal klaar is en vooral die zijn inzet al getoond heeft.
Misschien een idee om daar enkele van aan te schaffen, scheelt heel veel onnodig "ontwikkel-geld" :(
Fisher: Let's put the F-35 debate in perspective
By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News April 6, 2012 11:03 AM
The auditor general's report on the F-35 aside, no one knows what Canada will pay for the Joint Strike Fighter, and they won't until a final price is negotiated. So, in the inimitable words of Aislin, "Everyone take a Valium!"
Price estimates now range from $75 million to $162 million per aircraft. The nine partners in the JSF project are currently pressing the manufacturer (and the U.S. government, as program co-ordinator) to get costs down. The odds are, they will.
Things such as which tranche you buy in at, how many aircraft you buy, over what time frame, and where your currency is vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar at the time of signing, all will affect the prices each country pays - just as with every other similar program. Indeed, these factors can have a huge impact on final pricing. As things stand now, the Canadian military still reckons the per-aircraft cost, as the U.S. Congress was told last week, is about $85 million and that the federal government still can purchase F-35s under the $9-billion ceiling the Harper government unnecessarily announced two years ago and boxed itself into for good last week.
Still, the overriding question remains: does or doesn't Canada need a replacement for the CF-18s and if so, what performance should that replacement aircraft be capable of?
Unfortunately, sometimes ridiculously exaggerating what the AG had to say, politicians and other critics conflate these two, using the bureaucracy's and the government's handling of the procurement to question the need for the fifth generation F-35 itself.
Let's live in the real world. Unless Canada decides drastically to change its defence strategy and becomes pacifist and isolationist, we will continue, as we have done for a century, to commit ourselves to military alliances and partnerships to further our national interests. To be worthy allies and partners we have to be more than peacekeepers uttering platitudes - the bulwark of the Liberal defence strategy for years.
As with the entire F-35 debate, the auditor general's report is being discussed with no external context. The competence and integrity of the folks at the Defence Department aside, what about the eight other partner countries in the program, and the Japanese, who have ordered 42 F-35s? Why are a bunch of Europeans signed up to an American program when the EU nations already produces several newish fighter jets of their own. Are they all idiots, too?
The multinational JSF program follows on that of the F-16, another U.S. warplane chosen by many European countries about 30 years ago. As with the F-35, the F-16 had some initial teething problems but it was ultimately successful. This may explain why the F-35 European partner nations have shown far more patience with the F-35's hurdles than Canadian critics have.
As for Canada not having a competitive bidding process before deciding on the F-35, neither did its JSF partners except the U.S., which chose Lockheed Martin's X-35 over Boeing's X-32. The Japanese, who are not partners, did hold a competition and concluded the JSF was better than Boeing's Super Hornet and the Eurofighter consortium's Typhoon.
There is no competition to be had if you want stealth and a networked capability because there are no other western aircraft being produced now that have this. It is THAT simple. The justification that the U.S., Japan and most of their western European allies have accepted is that China and Russia are rushing to catch up with fifth-generation warplanes of their own. Looking out 20 or 30 years, it is hardly a stretch to see how the Chinese or Russians might one day pose a military threat to Canada or Canadian interests.
The only reason for Canada to have a competition to replace its CF-18's is if it decides - in advance - that the stealthy fifth-generation aspects of the F-35 are not important. If they aren't, then the F-35 is going to lose any competition, because aside from these potentially revolutionary capabilities, it isn't that much different from the fourth-generation aircraft out there and of course, it costs more.
Much has been made of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force purchasing a relatively small number of slightly less expensive fourth-generation Super Hornets, with suggestions that Canada should follow their lead. This totally misrepresents those Super Hornet purchases. They are intended to fill an operational gap due to F-35 production delays, not to replace them.
As for the fourth-generation alternatives to the F-35, several have had troubled histories. Sweden's Grippen, for example, had two very public and embarrassing prototype crashes. Nowhere near as advanced as the F-35, reams of its software code needed to be re-written, delaying the program and boosting costs. France's Rafale was long delayed, over budget, and it has little success in export sales despite years of expensive promotion. Eurofighter's Typhoon has experienced enormous problems, delays and cost overruns and has failed to attract buyers outside its builders' group. The only one that has had any real sales success has been the Super Hornet, and most of these sales have been as bridge aircraft to the F-35.
Why have so few Super Hornets been sold? There are many reasons, but one that stands out is that they are not in the same league as the F-35. The prospect of the JSF's arrival has helped keep other aircraft from selling well, as has the prospect of Russian and Chinese fifth-generation fighters now under development.
Something else forgotten is that Canada spent several billion dollars to purchase C-17 heavy-lift transport aircraft and rebuilt CH-47 medium-lift helicopters for the Afghan mission without a tendering process. At the time, some critics demanded that Canada consider Airbus's A-400M heavy-lift transport, then at the design stage. Well, the A-400M still has not entered service. The RCAF would still be waiting for it if it had been the winner of a competitive process.
Alas, almost none of this has shown up in either the government's case for the F-35 or in the broader debate surrounding it.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Fisher+debate+perspective/6421612/story.html#ixzz1rHgkwlMJ
Navy F/A-18 Hornet crash puts aging US fighter jet fleet back in spotlight
By Carlo Munoz - 04/07/12 10:45 AM ET
As details emerge on how a Navy F/A-18 Hornet fighter crashed into an apartment building in Virginia Beach on Friday, the incident has once again put the service's aging fighter fleet back in the spotlight.
The Hornet, attached to the Navy's 106th Strike Fighter Squadron out of Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach, crashed into the apartment building shortly after takeoff.
The fighter's two-man crew was able to eject safely from the aircraft. One crew member was hospitalized for non-life-threatening injuries.
Four other individuals were transported to local hospitals for injuries, according to local news reports, and all all residents had been accounted for early Saturday.
Before ejecting, the Hornet crew was reportedly able to dump the plane's fuel reserves before impact.
The fuel dump likely prevented a large degree of additional damage to the apartment complex and surrounding area.
Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, and Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) are working with the Navy and DoD to gain more insight into the crash.
Both lawmakers' offices "stand ready to do everything we can to help our neighbors in Virginia Beach," Forbes said in a statement issued Friday.
As Navy officials begin to piece together the circumstances surrounding the crash, one factor investigators will likely look into is the fighter's age.
The plane was an older D model, which first went into service in the late 1980s.
Those fighters, along with the newer E and F models known as Super Hornets, have borne the brunt of air support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past decade.
The E and F versions of the Navy and Marine Corps fighter jet entered service in the late 1990's.
Initially, the planes were only built to last for an estimated total of 6,000 flight-hours before being retired from the flight line.
But the numerous combat rotations to the Middle East and elsewhere, coupled with the training missions those planes fly when not deployed, have taken their toll.
The Hornet that crashed in Virginia Beach on Friday was flying a training mission out of the Oceana naval air base.
Service leaders already have a plan in place, known as a Service Life Extension Program, to stretch the lifespan of the old C and D model Hornets from 6,000 hours to 9,000 hours.
Marine Corps fighter squadrons rotating back from Afghanistan claim their Hornets are coming dangerously close to that 9,000 flight-hour ceiling.
Service officials claim that no Hornet or Super Hornet in the fleet has breached that 9,000 flight-hour limit to date.
The Navy is asking Congress to approve a plan to buy more Super Hornets as part of their fiscal 2013 defense budget proposal.
Specifically, service leaders want lawmakers to sign off on a plan to "add a fifth production year" to the Navy's current multiyear contract for the Super Hornet.
Securing that additional year to the fighter contract could allow the Navy to retire some of its older Hornet aircraft that have served much longer than they were designed for.
However, the Navy will be forced to continue to fly both versions of the F/A-18 until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter comes online.
Service leaders had expected the JSF to begin replacing the Hornet and Super Hornet fleet this year.
Navy and Marine Corps leaders had to push that estimated initial operational capability (IOC) date back to 2015, due to numerous schedule delays and cost increases in the F-35 program.
However, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said on Thursday that DoD has no firm date on when the F-35 will enter service.
"Rather than committing to a date, we are committing to the [development] process," Donley told reporters during a breakfast on Tuesday.
Continued development delays have forced the Pentagon and the services to constantly readjust the anticipated IOC date for the JSF, according to the service chief.
Program officials continue to work through engineering and development issues tied to those program delays.
Until those issues are resolved and the F-35 finally hits Marine Corps runways and Navy carrier decks, service officials will have to keep coming up with ways to keep the Hornet and Super Hornet in the sky.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/220411-hornet-crash-puts-aging-navy-fa-18-fighter-fleet-back-in-spotlight
Bill for Britain's new stealth fighter jets soars up to £15bn
By Tom Mcghie
PUBLISHED: 20:05 GMT, 7 April 2012 | UPDATED: 20:05 GMT, 7 April 2012
The costs of the US stealth Joint Strike Fighter programme, planned to be the backbone of Britain's air defences, have soared close to £1 trillion, according to secret Pentagon papers seen by Financial Mail.
The estimates mean the JSF project is the world's most expensive defence programme.
Latest calculations show it will cost a staggering £920 billion over 50 years, a huge increase since 2011's £631 billion estimate.
Britain plans to buy about 150 of the aircraft from 2020. Each will cost about £85 million, plus an extra £16 million for the engine – a total bill of more than £15 billion.
The sharp rise will cause more alarm at the Ministry of Defence, already battling to cut costs to enable the JSF to fly from Britain's two new aircraft carriers.
Britain's JSF and carrier project has been beset by turmoil, with the cost of the carriers, originally estimated at £3.5 billion, ballooning to £6.2 billion.
Labour originally ordered a short take-off and landing (STOL) version of the JSF, with the carriers designed to take a ski-ramp on their bow.
The Coalition cancelled STOL, to buy a more capable and cheaper version of JSF, which would take off from the carriers with the help of catapults.
But now the Coalition has discovered it will cost more than £1 billion to convert the carriers, busting the defence budget.
The MoD is now considering going back to the original STOL idea, which would involve renegotiating with the US to buy a more expensive and less effective aircraft. The Coalition must formally make up its mind soon.
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2126548/Bill-Britains-new-stealth-fighter-jets-soars-15bn.html#ixzz1rQkMLWDH
THE DOCUMENTARY
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yf23fighter.com%2FYF23fighter%2FYF23-documentary-black_widow_II_files%2Fshapeimage_8.png&hash=5d9ede1c635213bf764747fb06fe9c0501367f93)
"This was something that I had put ten years of my life into. From that first line on the paper, through the preparation of the full scale
development proposal was ten years of my life."
"If it's a beautiful airplane you fall in love with it. It's a thing of beauty. It's a machine that's alive, because of the power and beauty that's in it."
"Having been a pilot you can't look at it without wishing you had the opportunity to fly it."
"It was really fast. It went...much faster than the YF22. But I can't tell you how fast it actually went."
"There are a lot of people's emotions and man-hours and time wrapped up in the creation of this beautiful piece of machinery."
"We were spending a million dollars a day. So you felt guilty about going home and going to bed at night with that kind of money riding on it."
"it was such a team effort and such a coming together of the talents and ...hearts and souls of so many people, that there's a little piece of everybody in that airplane."
Of all the aircraft conceived and produced, none can match the engineers' artistry of the YF-23 Black Widow II. It was a fighter so advanced that it was poised to play a key role in keeping the Free World free during the Cold War, by outclassing everything else in the sky.
This is the only complete account of the TOP SECRET story behind the creation of the incredible supersonic ATF stealth fighter designed by the Northrop and McDonnell Douglas team, competing against the Lockheed designed YF-22, in competition for the hundred billion dollar prize contract with the Air Force....and why the U.S. Government decided not to buy it!
This doc tells the true story of the ingenuity required to create technology that didn't exist, and the intense human drama that formed the backdrop to the winner-take-all Pentagon competition. It's all here, the science, the secrets the heartaches and the triumphs, told by the scientists and test pilots themselves. More than three years in the making, The filmmakers faced the task of discovering and accessing the formerly top secret records, and securing approvals from Northrop, Lockheed and the U.S. Air Force, before their story could be told.
http://www.yf23fighter.com/YF23fighter/YF23-documentary-black_widow_II.html
Ik heb het idee dat die 6e generatie van Boeing voor een deel een doorontwikkeling is van die YF-23.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 08/04/2012 | 11:52 uur
Ik heb het idee dat die 6e generatie van Boeing voor een deel een doorontwikkeling is van die YF-23.
Dat zo slim zijn, scheeld natuurlijk enorm in de ontwikkelingskosten en tijd en zal misschien leiden tot een werkbaar alternatief tegen 2025/30.
Boeing roept immers al langer dat de F18E block II (misschien block III) de brug zou zijn (in hun commerciële optiek) om de 5e generatie volledig over te slaan om tussen 2025 en 2035 de 6e generatie te introduceren.
Het zou de F22/F35 wellicht in een klap overbodig (kunnen) maken. (iets wat misschien ook het veel te kleine aantal Raptors zou kunnen verklaren)
Het is wel duidelijk dat de YF23 superieur was ten opzichte van de YF22 en dat de USAF aan vriendjespolitiek heeft gedaan om het contract aan Lockheed Martin te gunnen.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 08/04/2012 | 12:02 uur
Het is wel duidelijk dat de YF23 superieur was ten opzichte van de YF22 en dat de USAF aan vriendjespolitiek heeft gedaan om het contract aan Lockheed Martin te gunnen.
Geldt dat niet ook voor de F35?!
Nou jurrien, voor er wordt gesproken over het overslaan van de hele 5de generatie, moet er eerst nog eens een full 5th generation toestel komen. Dat wil zeggen, het is nu alles behalve, de standaard, en de eurofighter is net zoveel 5th generation als de f35. Überhaupt klinkt het allemaal leuk, maar wat is die 6de generation dan precies?
Citaat van: Enforcer op 08/04/2012 | 12:09 uur
Geldt dat niet ook voor de F35?!
Klopt ook de X32 was superieur ten opzichte van de X35
Citaat van: dudge op 08/04/2012 | 12:21 uur
Nou jurrien, voor er wordt gesproken over het overslaan van de hele 5de generatie, moet er eerst nog eens een full 5th generation toestel komen. Dat wil zeggen, het is nu alles behalve, de standaard, en de eurofighter is net zoveel 5th generation als de f35. Überhaupt klinkt het allemaal leuk, maar wat is die 6de generation dan precies?
Dudge heel simpel een de 6de generation is een drone.
Citaat van: dudge op 08/04/2012 | 12:21 uur
Nou jurrien, voor er wordt gesproken over het overslaan van de hele 5de generatie, moet er eerst nog eens een full 5th generation toestel komen. Dat wil zeggen, het is nu alles behalve, de standaard, en de eurofighter is net zoveel 5th generation als de f35. Überhaupt klinkt het allemaal leuk, maar wat is die 6de generation dan precies?
In dit topic staan divers onderwerpen over de definitie van een 6e generatie.
Citaat van: Ace1 op 08/04/2012 | 12:26 uur
Dudge heel simpel een de 6de generation is een drone.
Dat is dus niet waar, er wordt gesproken over een combinatie (zie Boeing NGAD/FA-XX) en het LM 6e geneneratie concept lijkt bemand te zijn.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 08/04/2012 | 11:52 uur
Ik heb het idee dat die 6e generatie van Boeing voor een deel een doorontwikkeling is van die YF-23.
Dat zou heel goed kunnen, de basis van de YF-23 gebruiken en doorontwikkelen. Tevens de kennis met de EW-systemen gebruiken, welke worden aangeboden bij de F-15SE.
Economisch gezien moet Boeing wel met een klapper komen, de F15 en de F18 productielijnen hebben niet het eeuwig leven.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/04/2012 | 16:39 uur
Economisch gezien moet Boeing wel met een klapper komen, de F15 en de F18 productielijnen hebben niet het eeuwig leven.
Of beter gebruik gaan maken van de "pork barrel", want dat is het punt waarbij Lockheed nu 2x Boeing verslagen heeft. Niet op basis van kwaliteit.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/04/2012 | 12:01 uur
Boeing roept immers al langer dat de F18E block II (misschien block III) de brug zou zijn (in hun commerciële optiek) om de 5e generatie volledig over te slaan om tussen 2025 en 2035 de 6e generatie te introduceren.
Dit is meer wat ik bedoelde. Het lijkt me, echt, erg sterk, als je succesvol de sprong maakt als bedrijf van 'F4 phantom' naar 'F35'. En ik betwijfel ook of zo'n 6de generatie toestel dan echt ingeburgerd is. Vergeet niet, de F35, en die moet nog komen, is geen 5de generatie, de SU35 ook niet. Alleen de F22, PakFa e.d. voldoen wel aan die eisen. En mochten ze er mee komen, dan zal het denk ik eerder 2035 zijn, dan 2025. Bedenk wel, 2025 is dichter bij dan de start van het F35 project. (13 jaar vs 17 jaar). Ik moet nog maar zien of er dan een toestel rondvliegt naast álle 5th gen eisen, ook de 6de generatie eisen haalt, zoals een puls/directe energie wapen ipv een ouderwets kanon, enz. Ja, ze kunnen wel de ambitie hebben, maar het was met de F35 ook de bedoeling dat deze inmiddels aan meer eisen zou voldoen, in dienst was, en slechts 36 miljoen zou kosten.
Een optie is dat het JSF programma zo duur is, omdat er ook veel 'zwart' research geld in zit voor dat 6de generatie toestel :devil: Maar dat is een 'complottheorie'.
Citaat van: Enforcer op 08/04/2012 | 16:45 uur
Of beter gebruik gaan maken van de "pork barrel", want dat is het punt waarbij Lockheed nu 2x Boeing verslagen heeft. Niet op basis van kwaliteit.
Daar heb je een punt, maar dan zullen ze het nu wel moeten gaan doen want de eerste volgende kist die op de nominatie van vervanging staat is de F18E (naast de toestellen die de in de aankomende periode vervangen worden door de F35ABC)
Als ze die opvolging missen zijn ze even uit de running vwb de ontwikkeling/productie van fighters en zal Boeing zich moeten concentreren op bombers en U(C)AV's e.d.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/04/2012 | 16:39 uur
Economisch gezien moet Boeing wel met een klapper komen, de F15 en de F18 productielijnen hebben niet het eeuwig leven.
Waarschijnlijk kan Boeing daar nog wel even mee vooruit. Bedenk ook dat ze nog de nodige UAV's maken, en momenteel bezig zijn met het KC project, wat ook een beetje stroefjes schijnt te lopen. Maar inderdaad, nu instappen in de fighter markt is lastig, dus moeten ze zorgen dat ze er in blijven, want weg is mogelijk ook weg. De vraag is of de US dat laat gebeuren, concurrentie weg...
Citaat van: dudge op 08/04/2012 | 17:07 uur
Een optie is dat het JSF programma zo duur is, omdat er ook veel 'zwart' research geld in zit voor dat 6de generatie toestel :devil: Maar dat is een 'complottheorie'.
Ik geef het toe: ik zou graag een keer onbepwerkt willen rondneuzen in de (Boeing) Phantom Works en in de (LM) Skunk Works :angel:
Citaat van: dudge op 08/04/2012 | 17:11 uur
De vraag is of de US dat laat gebeuren, concurrentie weg...
Dit was een discussie punt bij de keuze tussen de X32/X35 en heeft de keuze van de Amerikanen LM wel de dominante partij (voor fighters) gemaakt voor de komende decenia.
Inmiddels zijn veel autonome fighter/bomber fabrikanten opgegaan in de grote twee.
McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, Grumman, Rockwell, General Dynamics toch namen die aan de basis stonden van F14, F15, F16, F18, B1 en B2 (geen van deze producten is van origine van LM of Boeing!)
Je kan kan dus terecht de vraag stellen of er in 2050 nog maar één (US) fighter fabrikant is als Boeing de volgende slag verliest.
$25 billion British budget blowout in black hole F-35 project
Published: 09 April, 2012, 17:45
The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), planes arrive at Edwards Air Force Base in California in this May 2010 file photo (Reuters/Tom Reynolds/Lockheed Martin Corp/Handout)
The stunning cost of the American Joint Strike Fighter program already exceeds $1.5 trillion, making it the most expensive military project in human history. Now the UK prepares to fork out its $25 billion.
The JSF stealth fighter jets, also known as F-35, are being developed and assembled by Lockheed Martin in the US. The JSF program is partly funded by Britain and seven other "partner nations".
Each F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jet will cost the UK around $139.5 million, plus an extra $26.2 million for each engine.
All in all, America's closest ally intends to buy 150 fighter jets for nearly $166 million each plane, although that is a substantial discount on the cost price.
The first order the UK will place at Lockheed Martin is expected to be for one squadron, about 20 JSF aircrafts.
Britain's outlay is much cheaper than the price tag for America itself. The development and construction of each of the 2,443 F-35 aircraft of all modifications will cost the US $618 million per unit.
Nevertheless, the rise in expenses has sparked alarm in the British Ministry of Defence, which already has to do something about the cost of the future two British aircraft carriers. Initially estimated at $5.75 billion, the project cost has soared to over $10 billion.
Originally, the Joint Strike Fighter program included a short take-off and landing (STOL) version that London ordered for its future air-carriers. Then the Coalition decided to cancel the STOL modification, planning to buy cheaper version that uses catapults to start from a carrier. However, London found out this decision will cost it additional billions in converting the carriers under construction.
British Ministry of Defence is currently considering returning to the STOL modification, which means negotiating with the US to finalize and start series production of the STOL F-35 model.
Other nations that back the Joint Strike Fighter program are either reducing the number of F-35s on order, like Italy – which has already said it needs 90 F-35 aircraft instead of 131 – or remain thoughtful about the deal, like Australia and Canada.
http://rt.com/news/f-35-british-cost-billions-590/
Citaat van: dudge op 08/04/2012 | 17:11 uur
Waarschijnlijk kan Boeing daar nog wel even mee vooruit. Bedenk ook dat ze nog de nodige UAV's maken, en momenteel bezig zijn met het KC project, wat ook een beetje stroefjes schijnt te lopen. Maar inderdaad, nu instappen in de fighter markt is lastig, dus moeten ze zorgen dat ze er in blijven, want weg is mogelijk ook weg. De vraag is of de US dat laat gebeuren, concurrentie weg...
Dat het KC project een beetje stroef verloopt ligt aan de US Airforce want Boeing kon dezelfde tankers die Italie en Japan hebben van de plank af leveren maar de US Airforce kwam met diverse aanvullende eisen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-46
Dit topic gaat over "Internationale fighter ontwikkelingen" en niet over allerlei andere projecten, zoals tankvliegtuigen. Ik verzoek u allen zich te houden aan het topic onderwerp.
Lex
Algeheel beheerder
F-35 = geen EW (electronic warfare) of airborne electronic attack (AEA) platform
The Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35, with their stealth signatures and the right software upgrades, could have been major weapon platforms for stand-in jamming; however, those upgrades have not been funded.
"The threat of electronic- and cyberattack on U.S. expeditionary forces, both manned and unmanned, is out there," the official says. "The Russians and the Chinese have designed specific EW platforms to go after all our high-value assets. There's no denial that it's going to be a major part of any campaign."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/04/09/AW_04_09_2012_p22-443985.xml&headline=GAO%20Lists%20Problems%20With%20EW%20Programs,%20Funding&prev=10
Het enigste echte vliegende EW-platform is de EA-18G (electronic attack aircraft), welke gebruikt wordt door de US en Australie.
Er werd altijd als voordeel aangehaald dat de F-35 ook EW capaciteiten heeft, maar dit is helaas niet het geval.
Citaat van: Harald op 11/04/2012 | 10:55 uur
F-35 = geen EW (electronic warfare) of airborne electronic attack (AEA) platform
Er werd altijd als voordeel aangehaald dat de F-35 ook EW capaciteiten heeft, maar dit is helaas niet het geval.
Dus een zeer groot aankoop voordeel is weg.
Fighter jet program in full swing
2012-04-11 20:05
South Korea is in the process of selecting a fighter jet to replace the older models in the Air Force's arsenal.
Worth more than 8 trillion won ($7 billion), the FX-III project is the largest single defense acquisition program the country has conducted.
Under the program, 60 new fighters will be purchased to replace older models such as the F-4 and the F-5.
With Defense Acquisition Program Administration planning to close the bidding process on June 18, the project is well under way.
From June 18, a task force comprising of military and civilian experts will review the proposals until July. From then on, the DAPA will conduct tests and negotiations for two months and the winner of the contract will be announced in October.
F-15K on which F-15 Silent Eagle is based
F-35 Lightning-II
The January bidding was entered by Lockheed Martin with its F-35 Lightning II, Boeing and its F-15 Silent Eagle and European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company N.V. with the Eurofighter Typhoon, along with Saab with its Gripen.
However, some still doubt whether the project can be conducted according to schedule.
"There were many cases in the past when such large projects did not get completed according to the original schedule," a government official with close knowledge of defense acquisition programs said.
"And this year there is the general election and presidential election, which has made some people doubt whether the current government can push the project through."
Despite such speculation, which has persisted since the project began in late January, the DAPA says that the process of selecting a new fighter jet will go as scheduled.
Typhoon
The plans were reiterated on April 3 after the DAPA held a conference with the bidding companies.
After the conference, attended by officials from Lockheed Martin, EADS and Boeing, the DAPA made known its intention to carry out a "fair and clear" bidding and said that the winner would be selected by the end of October in the "most beneficial direction possible for the country."
In evaluating each fighter jet, the DAPA will look at 150 criteria according to four main standards. The standards are cost, ability to meet the required operation capabilities, interoperability, and economic and technological benefits.
For the government, which plans to develop fighter jets with indigenous technology, technology transfer is a key criterion.
"How many South Korean parts are used in the fighter jets is very important grading criteria. It is not just simply to sell the parts, but to learn techniques to integrate them well into the aircraft through working together. That is our goal," DAPA Commissioner Noh Dae-lae said in an interview with The Korea Herald late last year.
With regards to Korean parts, Boeing may arguably have an advantage as a number of parts that go into its commercial and military aircraft are already produced in Korea.
However, with defense technologies being among the more closely guarded assets, it remains to be seen just how much technology transfer will occur.
Although Japan gained final assembly and checkout, or FACO, rights in its deal with Lockheed Martin, it is unclear whether Korea will be afforded the same conditions.
In addition, while industry sources say that assembling aircraft can't be done without a level of technology transfer, technology gained through such processes may be limited.
In terms of operational capabilities of the fighters, Seoul had initially focused on radar evading functions, low radar cross-section and the internal weapons bay, viewing the stealth capability as a prerequisite. However, the government has since changed its stance, which would have ruled out the F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter from the outset, for the purpose of conducting the program as an open competition.
While each fighter has its advantages ― the F-15 has larger weapon carriage capacity while the F-35 boasts full-stealth capability ― non-operational factors also come into play.
The F-15 Silent Eagle has the advantage that earlier versions of the aircraft are already operated by the Air Force, reducing training and maintenance costs. However, the F-15 Silent Eagle is based on a platform developed some time ago, which according to industry sources may limit its potential for upgrades.
The F-35 has full stealth capabilities, an entirely new feature for the Korean Air Force, but pilots would need to undergo training and extra costs could arise from the need for new facilities for maintenance related matters.
Another non-operational factor may be Japan's selection of the F-35, which is said to be favored by many in the Air Force.
Due to the F-35's full stealth capabilities, Lockheed Martin's offering is said to be favored by the Air Force as fighter jets with stealth capabilities have proven to have a significant advantage over those without to avoid detection by radar.
In a training exercise in 2006, the stealth F-22 reportedly beat non-stealth aircraft including the F-15, 144 to zero.
In addition to Japan, Israel has also chosen the F-35, adding to its profile.
While those in the industry are not publically speculating on how Japan and Israel's decisions will influence Seoul, the developments are unlikely to be ignored entirely.
"Israel is in a tough neighborhood and Japan faces the same security concerns as Korea," senior Lockheed Martin officials said, adding that Japan and Israel operating the aircraft will provide an "independent assessment" of the F-35's capabilities.
By Choi He-suk (cheesuk@heraldm.com)
http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20120411000185
Britain's Cameron Discusses Arms Deals in Indonesia
"Reports last year suggested that Britain and Indonesia were negotiating the sale of 24 Eurofighter Typhoons in a $2 billion deal."
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Britains-Cameron-Discusses-Arms-Deals-in-Indonesia--146988255.html
Choosing F-35 without competition the international norm
By Daniel Proussalidis,Parliamentary Bureau
First posted: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 05:20 PM EDT
Canada is in good company in not holding a competition to choose the F-35 stealth fighter jet. (Reuters)
OTTAWA – Calls are growing louder for the Conservative government to restart the process of replacing the aging CF-18 fighter jets through an open competition with bids from plane manufacturers, instead of pushing toward the F-35 purchase.
"It shouldn't have even been a sole-source (project)," said NDP defence critic David Christopherson on Wednesday. "If (the F-35) was that great a deal, it would have won the competition hands-down, lickety-split, no problem."
The Liberals have repeated similar demands.
Still, Canada is in good company in not holding a competition to choose the stealth fighter jet.
Among F-35 partners, only Denmark is holding a competition to choose a replacement for its aging F-16 fighters.
Lt.-Col. Per Lyse Rasmussen, the Danish assistant defence attaché, said the competition is on hold for now.
"The competition is expected to resume after the summer holiday period of 2012," said Rasmussen. "This (is) pending. There is no change in the current government's aim of choosing the type of fighter jet before the end of 2014."
Right now, Lockheed-Martin's F-35, the Saab Gripen and the Boeing F-18 Super Hornet are in contention.
The F-35 is heavily favoured in the Netherlands to replace the country's F-16s, though.
Col. Frits Stam, the Dutch defence attaché, confirmed there was no formal competition there.
"Two candidate comparisons were carried out, one in 2001 and the other in 2008," said Stam.
The first comparison found the F-35 to be "the best aircraft for the best price."
A smaller 2008 comparison still favoured the F-35, with the F-18 losing marks for higher maintenance costs due to its double engines.
Italy, Norway, Australia, and Turkey also lined up to buy the F-35 without formal competitions, though how many planes they ultimately buy will depend on budgets.
The U.K. was an original partner nation with the U.S. in the development of an all-purpose stealth fighter like the F-35.
Canada announced in 2010 it would replace the CF-18 with the F-35.
The auditor general has criticized the Department of National Defence for failing to adequately justify its choice.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/11/choosing-f-35-without-competition-the-international-norm
Sea Kings saga, redux
By Richard Shimooka, Ottawa CitizenApril 12, 2012 2:03 AM
In the early 1990s the Canadian Forces had finally settled on a replacement for its then-30-year-old Sea King helicopters. They selected the EH-101, a European helicopter that offered the capabilities needed by the military and at a cost that was lower than any of its competitors. Yet, in the run-up to the 1993 election, the political opposition seized upon the program and turned it into a campaign issue.
The EH-101 was derided as a "Cadillac purchase," an expensive luxury that did not meet Canada's needs. Yet it was already in service with five other NATO allies and would later become Canada's primary search and rescue platform. Nevertheless, the Chrétien government terminated the program upon taking office and dithered for a decade on a replacement. The government incurred more than $500 million in cancellation penalties while Canadian aerospace industries lost several profitable contracts. The military were forced to soldier on in increasingly decrepit helicopters that were obsolete, costly to maintain and a danger to their crews.
Fast-forward to 2012 and political rhetoric has again muddied the facts surrounding another procurement program. Like the EH-101, the F-35 has been characterized as being boondoggle and ill suited for Canadian needs. Yet data from the U.S. Government Accountability Office and U.S. budget documents suggests the unit costs of the F-35 variant Canada is interested in will only be about 10 per cent higher than previous Canadian estimates. This places it at about $85 million a copy, a significant rise, but certainly not the catastrophic cost increase that some have claimed. Furthermore, the need for the F-35's capabilities is acute. So long as the public calls upon the Canadian Forces to assist in foreign interventions like Kosovo or Libya, it will require a robust and capable multi-role fighter.
Like the EH-101, the value of the F-35 is clear when compared to the alternatives. Almost all other fighters with performance capabilities approaching that of the F-35 are significantly more expensive. The Cassadian Eurofighter and the Dassault Rafale are in the $100-million to $130-million range and are more costly to operate as twin-engined fighters. The government would need to increase its funding envelope cap of $9 billion to consider these aircraft.
This leaves only two possible alternatives. The Saab Gripen, a lightweight Swedish fighter that costs approximately $50 million per unit. Unfortunately it is insufficient for the RCAF's needs, being deficient in range and interoperability with allied systems. The latter capability is in fact a force multiplier - a greater combined effect with fewer aircraft - and especially important in working with U.S. military.
The other alternative is the Boeing Super Hornet; an upgraded CF-18 currently in service with the U.S. Navy. Like the Gripen, the F/A-18E is significantly cheaper than the F-35 at $60 million per aircraft, but it comes with serious drawbacks. The Super Hornet is nearing the end of its production life, with the U.S. Navy's contract to end in 2015. Even if the fighter is available for purchase after 2016, there are serious questions about its viability. The U.S. Navy has stated the Super Hornet's ability to operate in future conflicts is limited because of the proliferation of new Russian and Chinese air defence systems. Thus, as the F-35 enters service, the U.S. Navy will decrease the funding to upgrade the F/A-18E. Already the U.S. Navy has decided not to pursue major survivability upgrades such as an enhanced performance engine and stealthy weapon housing. The cost of maintaining this increasingly obsolete capability will grow substantially after 2025, less than a decade after the aircraft would enter service with the RCAF.
If the government decides to fully reopen the CF-18 replacement program decision, it will face this reality. It should be noted that nine other countries have selected the fighter, many of them through open, competitive tenders. This includes the Japanese Self Defense Force fighter contract two months ago, which chose the F-35 over the Eurofighter and the Super Hornet. While the process to select the F-35 may have been deficient, the result was not. Ignoring or diminishing the F-35's advantages to hold another competition raises a final parallel with the Sea King replacement program. In 2004, the government selected the Sikorsky Cyclone over the EH-101 in a competitive tender. This was a "paper" helicopter that had yet to fly a single test flight and had no other customers.
Eight years later Sikorsky has failed to deliver a single flyable example to Canada and still has yet to win another customer. The program's budget has nearly doubled its original estimates from $3.1 billion to $5.7 billion. Political rhetoric and exaggeration replaced reason and fact, which has acted to the detriment of Canada's public interests, and may well again.
Richard Shimooka is a research fellow in the Defence Management Studies Program at Queen's University in Kingston.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Kings+saga+redux/6444668/story.html#ixzz1rntkc1Tz
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/04/2012 | 01:13 uur
The F-35 is heavily favoured in the Netherlands to replace the country's F-16s, though.
Col. Frits Stam, the Dutch defence attaché, confirmed there was no formal competition there.
"Two candidate comparisons were carried out, one in 2001 and the other in 2008," said Stam.
The first comparison found the F-35 to be "the best aircraft for the best price."
A smaller 2008 comparison still favoured the F-35, with the F-18 losing marks for higher maintenance costs due to its double engines.
Duidelijk !!, al wisten wij dit natuurlijk wel. maar toch
F-18 versus F-35 verloren op onderhoudskosten in verband met dubbele motoren,....... bull-shit .... Het is al duidelijk aangetoond dat een single engined F-35 meer kost (vlieg-uur-kosten) dan een double engined F-18E.
"the best aircraft for the best price" ..... :hrmph: ..... kunnen ze dat bewijzen door een kandidatenvergelijk met de huidige kennis en wetenschap van de prestatisch en gegevens van kandidaten (Gripen NG, F-16V (block60+), Rafale, EF, F-15SE, F-18E/F)
Dat vergelijk van 2001 en 2008 is alleen maar geschikt voor het ronde archief (lees : prullebak).
Citaat van: www.torotosun.com op 12/04/2012 | 09:11 uur
Col. Frits Stam, the Dutch defence attaché, confirmed there was no formal competition there.
De huidige Nederlandse defensie-attache in Canada is geen "colonel", maar een "commander" (KLTZ)......
Turkey to buy two F-35s in 2012
Turkey, which said in February it intended to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jets, will buy only two this year, and will decide each following year how many planes it will order, Defence Minister Ismet Yilmaz told Reuters.
The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Corp remain upbeat about the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a radar-evading warplane, but the project has been hit by delays and rising costs.
Turkey, Italy, England, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Norway and Denmark are among partners to the United Sates in the project.
"Delays in the JSF Project stem from an ongoing development process for the planes, and Turkey has decided to order two planes in 2012 due to these delays," Defence Minister Ismet Yilmaz told Reuters in written comments.
"We will evaluate and decide each year the order size within this frame," Yilmaz said.
Yilmaz had told the parliament in February that Turkey planned to buy 100 F-35s in total, but other partners had reduced orders due to rising costs and delays in the project.
The US had postponed its order for 179 F-35s by five years, and England is to decide on the order in 2015.
Yilmaz also said the cost of an F-35 would be around $120 million for Turkey, much higher than a cost estimate of $40-50 million calculated in 2002. – Reuters
http://www.tradearabia.com/news/DEF_215837.html
Aircraft expert convinced F35 deal won't fly here, or the U.S.
Posted Apr 12, 2012By Thomas Charbonneau
There has been so much hyperbole lately about Canada's planned acquisition of the F35 that the average citizen doesn't know that the 'scoop' is about the real cost of this aircraft.
As of today, the 5th of April, a figure has surfaced placing the cost of acquiring 65 aircraft around $25 billion. Up to now, the government has been adamant that they have budgeted $9 billion for this project and they are firm on that.
Every day the Associate Minister of National Defense has been using these 'talking points' ad nauseam/to the point he actually believed that to be true. So too did the Minister of National Defense.
/After reading American reports and listening to U.S. Congressional insiders, the figures have been going up and up and there is serious doubt that this aircraft will ever see the 'operational light of day.' But one wants to believe this aircraft is the 'best thing since Kraft Dinner.'
I wanted to believe that and I was being brainwashed into believing it! That is until I met an unnamed aeronautical engineer last November, who just happened to be on the same cruise my spouse and I were on. He is employed by Boeing in St. Louis, Missouri and while we were discussing how to make Budweiser, he suggested that other than "sending him to school,"/Canada ought to take a course on avionics and rethink the purchase of the F35 because he thought the project was 'doomed.'
I asked him why he thought that way and he explained that what the United States wanted to develop was an airframe and avionics that would see three variants.
The first one would be a stealth aircraft that would meet the air forces requirements. The second was a similar variant to meet the requirements of the U.S. Marine Corps i.e. vertical take-off and landing capabilities like the Harrier jump jet. The third was also a similar variant for the navy that would meet aircraft carrier operational needs.
He stated flatly that this was impossible to achieve at the present time and the developmental history bears this out. The aircraft is simply too costly as things stood.
'Three in One Oil' is one thing ... a three-in-one airplane is 'horse of a different colour'.
I asked him about an alternative aircraft for the RCAF, and he simply said that there are alternatives on the market that would meet Canada's needs and at the price budgeted would enable Canada to purchase more than the 65 aircraft budgeted for the F35.
He also said he was biased toward the Boeing 'Super Hornet'. Reason? It will fit the infrastructure already in place for the F18 'Hornet.' It is a very good aircraft in his estimation and will more than meet Canada's requirements for the next generation.
Then he reiterated his opinion that at the 'end of the day' the F35 will never make it to the flight lines of the prospective purchasers.
The last time I saw this fellow was at the Remembrance Day Ceremony on November 11 of last year. I gave him and his spouse 'poppies' and when we parted company, his last words were "remember what we chatted about." Canada will not be able to afford the F35 ... neither will the United States or anyone else either."
The events of the past week seem to bear out his opinion out.
Thomas Charbonneau
http://www.emcarnprior.ca/20120412/news/Aircraft+expert+convinced+F35+deal+won't+fly+here,+or+the+U.S.
Blijkbaar heb ik toch iets gemist....?
UK Sells 24 Fighter Planes to Indonesia
Thursday, 12 April, 2012 | 14:04 WIB
TEMPO Interactive, LONDON:The UK has sold 24 Eurofighter Typhoons worth 2 billion pounds to Indonesia. The sale was agreed upon by the British and Indonesian governments last year.
Prime Minister David Cameron explained the plan before flying to Jakarta for a two-day official visit yesterday. The British prime minister was accompanied by 30 business delegates, including those in the defense sector.
"The UK has made some of the best defense equipment in the world so this is perfect for Indonesia, which has the same criteria that we apply to all partners worldwide," said Cameron.
The sales also marked the end of a military embargo against Indonesia, which has been applied for more than a decade. At that time, the Laborers Union called for an embargo to protest the use of British Hawk fighter planes to bomb civilians in East Timor.
http://www.tempointeractive.com/hg/nasional/2012/04/12/brk,20120412-396610,uk.html
Israeli air force chief unfazed by F-35 cost overruns
Posted Thursday, Apr. 12, 2012
By Barry Shlachter
FORT WORTH -- There were no outward expressions of concern with the F-35 joint strike fighter's price overruns and lengthy delays on Thursday when Israel's air force chief and Rep. Kay Granger toured the project at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant.
Gen. Ido Nehushtan declined to address any cost issues, insisting that the focus should be on securing the most advanced jet fighter for the Jewish state. He called the planned order of 19 F-35s the "pillar for the Israeli air force for the years to come."
Granger, the former Fort Worth mayor who plays a key role as chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations and as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, blamed changing Pentagon requirements for delays and the higher price tag.
The Fort Worth Republican emphasized the importance of equipping Jerusalem with the latest weaponry, repeating her long-held position of support by saying, "We don't have a better ally in the world than Israel."
And she noted that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has pledged to ensure that Israel has air superiority in its region by getting the F-35.
In February, the Pentagon in its proposed 2013 budget cut its planned orders of F-35s for the third straight year, saying it would reduce orders by 179 planes over five years. The reductions threaten to boost the cost of producing the plane, leading some international program partners to say that they, too, would reduce their orders.
But a top Lockheed executive on the F-35 program said the cost issue is misunderstood. Tom Burbage, executive vice president and general manager for the joint strike fighter project, said the plane's price will drop significantly when it goes into production.
Last July , Defense Industry Daily said Lockheed was keen on snagging a substantial early order from Israel because potential customers with aging air fleets were reluctant to pay higher early production costs. In December, Japan announced its intention to buy 42 F-35s.
"A large order book would allow the firm to offer early buyers much lower prices for each plane, using dollar averaging over a substantial initial batch, instead of charging $150-$170 million for early production aircraft and $100 million or so for the same plane 3 years later," it said.
At one point, Israel had indicated that it wanted to buy 100 F-35s. But on Thursday, Burbage spoke of a 19-plane order delivered several at a time, with Israelis supplying the outer wings, primary optics for the pilot's helmet and other components.
Like other foreign buyers, Israel would buy the plane from the U.S. government, not directly from Lockheed, once it signs a purchase contract, Burbage said.
Asked about the nuclear risk from Iran, Granger said: "The world can't let Iran have nuclear weapons. ... Iran is not just a threat to Israel, it's a threat to everyone." If Iran gets the bomb, she said, other countries including Venezuela could achieve nuclear capability. "A global nuclear war, that's what we are looking at. It's that serious."
With Panetta trying to identify $487 billion in defense savings over a decade, there are growing concerns over how many F-35s the government will end up buying and at what cost. Granger has vowed to defend the JSF, saying that it is a unique, stealth aircraft needed for the future.
"China is preparing for the future, Russia is preparing for the future, we have to prepare for the future and the F-35 is the future," she said.
Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/12/3880292/israeli-air-force-chief-unfazed.html#storylink=cpy
Inaction Hovers Over Indian MMRCA Program
Apr 12, 2012
By Asia-Pacific Staff
New Delhi
Such is India's idiosyncratic procurement system that, in the run-up to the award of the $12 billion Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft program, the joke was that the only thing worse than losing would be winning. For Dassault, that reality is not that far off.
After its Rafale offer beat out the Eurofighter Typhoon in January as the low-cost bidder for the MMRCA program, there has been much talk about the fate of the project, but very little action. Talks have been stuck since late February, with departmental inquiries into allegations that the final selection process was manipulated to favor Rafale.
Following weeks of uncertainty, Defense Minister A.K. Antony revealed last week that the program would move forward only after all inquiries were made and the ministry was satisfied that the selection process had not been corrupted. But that may not happen anytime soon.
"There are at least seven to eight more levels of scrutiny and process before the MMRCA contract can be signed," Antony says. "The contract has to be vetted at multiple levels, including the finance ministry and the cabinet committee on security. Right now an inquiry is on. Only after we receive the inquiry report, study it and are satisfied that all processes have been followed unfailingly will the procurement effort move to the next level."
Less than a month after the Rafale got the nod, the defense minister received a letter from M. V. Mysura Reddy, a member of the Indian parliament's standing committee on defense, asking for an inquiry into the selection process.
Allegations of favoritism are not new in Indian defense contracting, and the MP's letter could be the first of many twists in a journey that hardly suffers from a lack of drama and intrigue. Initially, officials indicated that the favoritism issue might only receive a cursory glance to satisfy the legislator's concerns, but the process may now be more extensive.
Formally, negotiations between the Indian contract committee and Dassault have begun, but in reality the two parties have not met even once as a result of the complaint, according to officials close to the proceedings. The ministry has refused to divulge the nature of its inquiries, although in March it acknowledged that internal questions raised about the Rafale's life-cycle cost had been looked at but dismissed.
A Dassault official says: "We are waiting to see if we can help with any information. We've worked with the Indian air force and [defense ministry] for years, and are confident that we have provided all the information necessary and are fully compliant with the selection process. The Rafale was selected because it was the better aircraft backed by a better industrial package."
The delays are beginning to worry the eventual customer, however. Indian air force sources say IAF leader Air Chief Marshal Norman Browne, who met the defense minister last week as part of a defense acquisition council (DAC) meeting, raised both the MMRCA program and delays in a final contract for a basic trainer as issues of concern.
The Indian government doused speculation that India and Brazil would jointly negotiate with Dassault for a common best price on the Rafale. "That is impossible and can never happen," Antony declares. Brazil is due to make a type selection among the Rafale, Boeing F/A-18E/F and Saab Gripen. A visit by Defense Minister Celso Amorim to India shortly after the Rafale selection gave rise to speculation that a partnership was in the offing, but that has been dismissed as merely coincidental. Furthermore, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is due in Washington this week, and the F-X2 fighter competition also is expected to be on the agenda.
The company most eager to see the derailment of MMRCA talks is runner-up Eurofighter. Officials for EADS, the Typhoon partner in charge of the Indian campaign, have signaled that they view the contest as still in play. "As L2 [second-lowest bidder], we take our responsibility seriously," a company official said during the recent Defexpo defense exhibition in New Delhi. "There is a larger concern that the Indian air force shouldn't suffer on any count as a result of delays. They need their aircraft as soon as possible."
The loss in India also has given rise to renewed interest in Europe for core Eurofighter governments to press forward with a radar upgrade to add an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) to the fighter. Eurofighter industrial partners have been self-funding the development in the absence of government backing. That has created uncertainty over the fielding schedule, although industry officials insist they could meet a 2015 objective. In contrast, the first Rafale with the Thales RBE2 production AESA is to fly this year; the first radar was recently delivered to Dassault for installation on C137, the aircraft to be used for the test campaign at the Istres flight test center in southern France. France would become the first European air force to field an AESA when the system becomes operational.
The fluid status has also led to continued political lobbying in India over the program. British Chancellor George Osborne, who visited India last week, is understood to have pushed Eurofighter's case with the government. A French delegation also called on the country's junior defense minister to see if it could gain more information about the inquiry.
Not all program activities are on ice, though. Hindustan Aeronautics, which will license-build 108 MMRCAs, has requested bids for a new design and manufacturing facility in Bengaluru for the new production line.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/04/09/AW_04_09_2012_p33-444232.xml&headline=Inaction%20Hovers%20Over%20Indian%20MMRCA%20Program&next=10
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 12/04/2012 | 20:37 uur
Blijkbaar heb ik toch iets gemist....?
UK Sells 24 Fighter Planes to Indonesia
Het zou mooi zijn. Maar, ik kan er verder niks over vinden, behalve dat heel veel berichten dat er over wordt gesproken, geen berichten dat deze gesprekken zijn omgezet in werkelijke orders. Wel wat over de aankoop van extra F16's, dus denk dat het uiteindelijk niet is doorgegaan.
Ben benieuwd of er meer gaat komen, zou mooi zijn als de EF nog wat verkopen weet te genereren.
Citaat van: dudge op 13/04/2012 | 14:13 uur
[Het zou mooi zijn. Maar, ik kan er verder niks over vinden, behalve dat heel veel berichten dat er over wordt gesproken, geen berichten dat deze gesprekken zijn omgezet in werkelijke orders. Wel wat over de aankoop van extra F16's, dus denk dat het uiteindelijk niet is doorgegaan.
Ben benieuwd of er meer gaat komen, zou mooi zijn als de EF nog wat verkopen weet te genereren.
Ik kon mijn nieuwsgierheid ook niet bedwingen... met hetzelfe resultaat als jij.
The F-35: Not just costly but obsolete
To aviation nerds, the Joint Strike Fighter looks like an ugly mutt
by From the editors on Friday, April 13, 2012 9:43am - 0 Comments
Chris Wattie/Reuters
In the bitter parliamentary dispute over the costs of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which Canada has spent hundreds of millions helping to develop but may still not buy, there is an awful lot of "What did they know and when did they know it?" Predictably, as the Harper government's position on the sole-source contracting has become less and less defensible, the debate is shifting to the bottom line: is the F-35 a good aircraft or not? It has become apparent that National Defence bureaucrats and Conservative ministers bet heavily on American military-industrial competence, and the voters may still forgive almost anything if Canada ends up with a cool Canadian-badged airplane that dominates the enemy in the battle theatre.
But this is the scary thing for the F-35's defenders: to aviation nerds, the Joint Strike Fighter is looking more and more like an ugly mutt. Consider one important example of how our commitment to the JSF as a NATO partner has gone awry: the cutting-edge helmet-mounted display that was meant to help make up for the speed and manoeuvrability limitations of a single-engined stealth fighter. In the early days of JSF promotion, the user interface was touted as being at least as important to the project as the aerodynamic qualities of the airframe itself. Pilots would be sent into a fight with "360-degree situational awareness," day or moonless night, giving them long seconds to defend themselves while opponents in more traditional aircraft were still figuring out which way was up.
Fast-forward to May 2010, when, according to the new auditor general's report on F-35 procurement, the Public Works department began to question the need for a sole-source contract for new fighters. According to public-service rules, Public Works warned National Defence, there had to be an open competition for the contract unless it could be shown in advance that the F-35 was the only plane that met defence requirements. No problem, said National Defence; in literally one day it cooked up a list of those requirements, including one item that basically specified the F-35's visionary 360-degree helmet display. The stated rationale for buying the F-35 thus depends quite heavily on this one piece of technology, even if one takes the word of F-35 proponents that it is a legitimate operational necessity.
And yet the F-35 is losing even this rigged game. In March, Aviation Week reported that Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, put out a request for proposals on a completely new helmet-mounted display system that would "make use of commercial, off-the-shelf night-vision goggles." Lockheed had announced in November that Vision Systems International, which built the existing system being tested in F-35 training, was being given a contract to fix a problem with "jitter affecting the display symbology" on the helmet displays. Now Lockheed wants an independent scratch-built backup—one that may in turn require a redesign of the F-35 cockpit and external sensors.
This is not the kind of thing one likes to see happening 19 years after the creation of the Joint Strike Fighter program and 11 years after Lockheed Martin beat out Boeing for the U.S. contract. The F-35 looks a lot like the second coming of the B-2 bomber; a high-tech military megaproject on which billions are gambled, and that ends up being a half-obsolete curio by the time all the kinks are worked out. The B-2 was designed for an era of strategic bombing in wars between superpowers; when the Cold War ended and an era of asymmetric warfare began, it was left with little justification, and the fleet has flown few sorties, considering its expense.
The development of unmanned, remote-controlled aerial drones is rapidly eroding the rationale for the F-35 in a similar way. More broadly, the existing American system of military procurement is beginning to look hopelessly slow and cumbersome in a period of fast, decentralized technological progress. Our military leaders and bureaucrats, influenced by hungry contractors and by notions of continental amity, married into that system early. They are, quite naturally, still offering the last spasms of a defence of that decision. But, as the Conservatives are quick to point out, we haven't bought any planes yet. We are still free to treat sunk costs as sunk costs, and to impose proper public-sector purchasing practices on a military-industrial field that has too long considered itself exempt from them.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/13/costly-obsolete-its-getting-hard-to-justify-buying-this-jet/
Via LinkedIn
Ian Knight • Eerste UK STOVL vlucht: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9967551/F12-16157.jpg
Ian Knight • (Wel een beetje jammer dat de kist een hydraulic failure kreeg tijdens de vlucht....)
Aircraft Carrier F35 Jet U-Turn Considered By Ministers
The Huffington Post UK | By Asa Bennett Posted:
16/04/2012 12:33
Ministers are preparing to back down on a controversial decision over the type of jet that will be flown from the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers, according to reports.
Ministry of Defence chiefs are said to be pressing the government to drop plans to buy the F35C fighter jet in favour of the F35B short take-off, vertical landling (STOVL) version, as planned by the previous Labour government.
A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesman said all programmes were being reviewed, "including elements of the carrier strike programme" and according to the BBC ministers have debated a possible U-turn.
A reassessment of the programme ordered by the prime minister has uncovered that the F35C would cost an additional £1.8bn, would lack compatibility with France's aircraft carrier and would not be likely to come into service until 2025.
A senior defence official - who did not want to be named - warned of the risks of "sky-rocketing" budget costs. The source said: "It [a reversion to the F35B] is fully endorsed by the Chiefs of Staff, importantly including the Royal Navy and RAF."
A reported £250mhas been spent on the redesign of the carriers since 2010, and Mr Cameron derided Labour's choice of the vertical landing aircraft as "wrong" and giving Britain a "more expensive and less capable version of the Joint Strike Fighter".
"This U-turn would be a humiliation for the prime .inister," Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy warned.
"The rushed defence review is falling apart. Britain's aircraft carrier programme is one of the most strategically important elements of national defence but prime ministerial hubris has combined with departmental incompetence and left British air power at sea downgraded" he added.
Last year, a cross-party group of MPs said the full costs of scaling back Britain's aircraft carrier programme were not fully understood by the Government. The Commons Public Accounts Committee said that there remained "considerable uncertainty" about the costs of modifying one of the new ships to accommodate the different kind of fighter jet. It accused the MoD of focusing on "short-term" affordability in drawing up options for the SDSR to cover a £38 billion black hole in its budget.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/16/government-aircraft-carrier-jets-uturn_n_1427759.html
The new Eurofighter is ready for electromagnetic combat
By Dan Smith
16 April 12
This article was taken from the May 2012 issue of Wired magazine. Be the first to read Wired's articles in print before they're posted online, and get your hands on loads of additional content by subscribing online.
BAE Systems doesn't want its £60 million Eurofighter Typhoon shot down. So each aircraft is fitted with a Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS), which is assessed in this controlled environment. The walls of BAE's Electronic Warfare Test Facility in Warton, Lancashire, are lined with 20,000 carbon-coated cones, making it impregnable to electromagnetic interference. "Any signal we make there, stays there," says Stuart Richmond, a senior engineer.
Richmond's team bombard the aircraft with up to 65,536 electromagnetic signals, from radio to laser, and evaluate how the DASS reacts to them. "We measure how long it takes to detect the signals, work out what they are, tell the pilot and generate a countermeasure," he says. And by emitting its own radio frequencies, the Typhoon can distort the enemy's information -- it can appear to fly at different altitudes or directions, and redirect incoming missiles. Let's hope its Satnav still works
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/05/start/battle-signals
Citaat van: huffingtonpost.co.uk op 16/04/2012 | 15:17 uurA reassessment of the programme ordered by the prime minister has uncovered that the F35C would cost an additional £1.8bn, would lack compatibility with France's aircraft carrier and would not be likely to come into service until 2025.
Lack compatibility with France's aircraft carrier?! Lijkt me een extra argument om ook de F-35C te laten vallen en als interim de Rafale M te kiezen. En dan samen met de Fransen werken aan de opvolger van de Rafale en Eurofighter (en Gripen). Dit keer 1 toestel in zowel land-als marine-versie. Verdient ook de Britse industrie veel meer aan dan meedoen aan de F-35. Waar steeds meer potentiele geinteresseerden een aandeel krijgen in de productie en ook de Amerikanen werkgelegenheid willen behouden voor de eigen onder druk staande industrie. Het is een grote stap maar zou historisch zijn en echt een basis leggen voor verdere Brits/Franse en Europese/EU samenwerking. Daarbij zal India waarschijnlijk ook de Rafale M gaan overwegen.
F-35 will quickly be outdated
9:47 am, April 15th, 2012
JOHN ROBSON | QMI AGENCY
There's something I'm not buying about the F-35 "stealth" joint-strike fighter. Besides the government's dishonest bloviating and the opposition's peacenik whimpering, I mean. I just can't understand a plane meant to dominate aerial combat for five decades in a world of blinding technological change.
I do understand the need for air power. And for "interoperability" with our American ally, the free world's only remaining military hope even under Barack Obama. But I don't believe the F-35, after inevitable teething problems and cost increases, will dominate the skies for two generations. The world just isn't like that, and neither is this plane.
OK, we're currently flying CF-18s we bought in 1980 over destroyers we bought in 1972. And today's CF-18 is not the plane that began entering service in 1982; rather, the same reliable airframe has seen constant "avionics" and weapons upgrades. But the F-35 won't work that way for two main reasons.
First, the big boast of the F-35 is its "stealth" invisibility to radar. And if all your eggs are in that basket and they knock a hole in it you have no eggs.
I grant that enemy radar can't currently see the F-35. Not just Libyan radar that wasn't connected to anything. This plane would doubtless give the Chinese fits if we had any in the air. But we don't. And what makes you think they won't be able to see it in 10 years, or 15? I'd certainly bet our radar will be tracking their "Mighty Dragon" J20 stealth fighter before it's fully operational.
Second, manufacturing is faster and more adaptable today than in 1982. Compare today's iPad with the one you had four years ago and tell me we won't have far better stealth options, and airframes, four years from now.
OK, that was a trick example. The iPad didn't even appear until April 2010 and we're already on the 3rd generation. But that's my point.
As for warplanes, the legendary "Sopwith Camel", which Snoopy flies against the Red Baron, entered service on the Western Front in June 1917 and was obsolete by the November 1918 Armistice. If the F-35 comes into service in June 2017 and lasts even 25 years, it's the equivalent of flying Sopwith Camels against ME-109s over London during the Blitz. Yet technology changes faster today than in 1917.
Or 1940. But consider how badly the Allies were caught with their armaments down at the start of World War II with the partial exception of the Spitfire, and how they managed to create a whole new generation of aircraft, tanks and antitank weapons in six years for Britain and Canada and just four for the United States under conditions of total war. Even Germany's 1944 tanks made their 1940 Blitzkrieg Panzer II's look like toys, and in the final collapsing year of the war they put jet fighters in the air that were museum pieces a decade later.
Now if trouble comes fast and hard there's little time for this kind of rapid adaptation. But the F-35 won't be ready either. I say if a bakery can turn an emailed JPG picture into cake icing, medical men talk soberly about 3D "printing" of artificial organs for transplant and your car plays tunes wirelessly off your phone, we can improve military hardware with computers and lasers at least as fast as our grandparents did with typewriters and wrenches.
As for interoperability, compare hooking computer components together 20 years ago ("driver not found"!) with seamlessly accessing email and your home security system with your iPhone. It really shouldn't be hard to make military hardware cooperate in future. Heck, by 2022 your iPad will be interoperable with the F-35.
Or the pilotless drones we should actually be flying instead.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/04/20120415-094704.html
Government may trim F35 order
April 16, 2012
Norwegian government officials are now admitting that the huge costs of replacing the country's current fleet of F16 fighter jets will likely cut into state funding for schools, health care and transport programs. The government may decide to trim its order, from 52 of the new F35 jets to 46.
"When we need to allocate NOK 4 billion a year in addition to the defense budget, which already is the biggest per capita in Europe, there have to be consequences somewhere," Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide told newspaper Bergens Tidende over the weekend.
Eide said that's why his ministry is expanding the acquisition period, to spread the costs over more years.
He said planned flying time for the jets may also be reduced, to save money. Last spring, planned flying time was set at 12,640 hours a year. That's been cut to 9,100 hours in the military's new long-term plan.
Eide said pilots can train in advanced simulators, saving around NOK 120 million a year in fuel costs alone.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/04/16/government-may-trim-f35-order/
Shaun Francis & John Kelleher: Get over the F-35 sticker shock
Shaun Francis & John Kelleher, National Post Apr 16, 2012 – 6:30 AM ET | Last Updated: Apr 13, 2012 4:42 PM ET
The F-35 debate has been a case study in bad accounting, bad journalism and bad communication planning. But mostly, it's a case study in bad decision framing. Everyone's focus has been only on the total cost of the F-35 program. As was predictable, this approach to framing the problem has provoked a national paroxysm of sticker shock.
But no one is questioning whether Canada needs fighter jets. The question is, which fighter jets to buy? So perhaps the Auditor-General, or the government, could take a different approach to framing this problem: Rather than focusing on the project's total cost, we should instead examine how much more this option costs versus other realistic options.
Should I purchase a car or a bicycle? Should I purchase a new car or a used car? We all face decisions like this all the time. The only proper way to frame such decisions is to analyze the incremental costs of one alternative versus the best set of substitute alternatives.
Consider a car. Let's say you're considering buying a subcompact or an SUV, which you plan to hold onto for five years. A subcompact has a one-time purchase cost of $20,000 followed by $7,000 in annual, recurring costs on things like gas and maintenance. Your total costs over five years are therefore $55,000, or $11,000 average cost/year.
Meanwhile, the SUV has a one-time purchase cost of $25,000 and recurring costs of $7,500, leading to a five-year total cost of $62,500, or $12,500 average total cost/year.
To examine whether buying an SUV makes sense, you take the costs of the SUV and you subtract the costs of your next best alternative, the subcompact. Then you ask yourself, is it worth a premium of $1,500 per year to drive an SUV versus a subcompact?
From a decision point of view, it doesn't make sense to get upset over the $62,500 total cost of the SUV. That's not the pertinent figure here. You can't walk to work. You need a car. So the pertinent question is the cost differential — in this example the $7,500 premium between your preferred choice and the next best option.
Canada's F-35 decision should have been framed in a similar fashion by the Auditor General. The appropriate question? Do we want to pay a premium for the world's best fighter jet, which will be cutting edge for decades to come, or can we make do with more reasonably priced planes that are bound to become obsolete sooner?
Let's say we have three options, each one with an assumed useful life of 20 years. And please note, aside from the F-35 costs, the numbers below are our own invention, and are meant only to illustrate how the problem should be framed.
1. We can replace our existing CF-18 fleet with new F-18 Super Hornets, which would cost, say, $20-billion over 20 years, or $1-billion per year.
2. We can replace our existing CF-18 fleet with another jet, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Let's assume that this would cost $22-billion over 20 years, or $1.1-billion per year in total costs.
3. We can replace our CF18s with the F-35s, the fifth-generation multi-role fighter. Commentators are now saying the F-35s will cost $25-billion over 20 years or $1.25-billion per year.
For argument's sake let's assume maintaining our current pool of fighter jets costs us $800-million per year. Our A-G should be making the point that the incremental costs of the new F-35 program will be, say, $450-million per year more than what we are already spending on our program today. And the incremental cost of the F-35 program versus upgrading to a new fleet of F-18 Super Hornets, our cheapest other realistic option, is about $250-million per year, say. In other words, in the view of the Canadian military, we get a vastly better jet built by our largest partner in national defence for an F-35 premium of about 25% versus our cheapest realistic option. We should be discussing the issue in these terms.
Fighter jets are expensive. We get it. That $25-billion is a lot of money. But it's not productive for everyone in the country to spiral into sticker shock. Instead, we have to consider the cost of the other options. And once we do that, then perhaps the premium that exists for the F-35 becomes a little less outrageous.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/16/shaun-francis-john-kelleher-get-over-the-f-35-sticker-shock/
Coalition set for defence strategy U-turn over carrier jets
By DAVID MADDOX
Published on Tuesday 17 April 2012 02:00
THE Royal Navy has announced the next generation of aircraft carriers will use the original version of the joint strike fighter (JSF) in an apparent U-turn in the government's defence strategy.
A press release issued by the Royal Navy said the B-version of JSF, which is being tested over Texas, "will deliver the punch of the Royal Navy's future carriers at the end of the decade".
That version of the jet, which is capable of vertical take-off and landing, was originally ordered by the previous Labour government, but ditched by the coalition in favour of a cheaper model.
In the strategic defence and security review (SDSR) published in November 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron damned the version of the JSF ordered by Labour as "more expensive and less capable", saying it was part of "an appalling legacy the British people have every right to be angry about".
He announced that a new version would be bought and "we will fit the cat and traps – the catapults and arrestor gear to the operational carrier".
The Ministry of Defence last night insisted no final decision had yet been made.
But the press release put out by the Royal Navy was taken by political opponents as evidence that the SDSR is unravelling with question marks over its base review, as well as a capability gap left by the scrapping of the replacement Nimrod spy planes.
Opposition parties have been calling for the review to be reopened, not least because of the fact that the UK will be without an aircraft carrier until at least 2020, possibly 2025.
The press release came after reports that senior commanders made it clear to Mr Cameron that the government should revert to the B-version and drop the plan of purchasing a C-version.
The Scotsman understands that the government is resigned to a U-turn on one of its most high-profile changes to defence policy in the SDSR because of problems in design and the estimated £1.8 billion cost of installing a cat and trap system.
The decision is waiting to be signed off by the National Security Council, but ministers have accepted they have little choice.
Reverting to the B-type also allows both new carriers to be brought into use, because it was too expensive to install the launch system on both. In addition, the cat and trap system would not be compatible with French aircraft, one of the major reasons for the original change.
A spokeswoman for the MoD said the Royal Navy article was about aircraft purchased by the last Labour government and there was an ongoing review into whether to switch to the C variant.
She added: "No decision has been made yet."
But opponents pointed out that the Royal Navy article appeared to say specifically that the B-version of the JSF is the one which will be used.
It said: "The jet, which is the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F35 (JSF), will complete a series of company and government checkout flights before being handed over to the MoD later this year for training and operational tests at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
"The frontline variant of the jet – also known as the Lightning II – will fly from the decks of HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, under construction at half a dozen yards."
F35C: catapult take-off
THE F35C, the third version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) considered by the UK government, differs from the A and B versions because it is specifically designed for aircraft carriers.
It has larger wings than the other two versions and relies on a catapult and trap system for take-off and landing.
This is the version which will be used by the United States' aircraft carriers.
David Cameron announced in November 2010 that the UK would also use this version.
However, to use the F35C would mean that the United Kingdom would probably not have an aircraft carrier ready until 2025, would not be able to use both of the new ships and modifications would cost £1.8 billion.
F35B: vertical take-off
ThE second version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was primarily designed for the UK's aircraft carrier programme.
The F35B differs from the earlier F35A by being designed for vertical take-off and landing.
This meant it was unable to travel as far, because it had to sacrifice some of its fuel capacity.
Its critics pointed out that carriers using the B-version would not be compatible with the US or French jets, the UK's two key allies.
Importantly, the UK and French now have a carrier-sharing agreement.
This version started trials in December 2011 and three have already been ordered by the UK government.
The first of the tests on the UK-purchased jets started in Texas this week.
F35A: runway take-off
THE first version of the Joint Strike Fighter of F35 was for conventional take-off and landing from a runway.
The A-type was the one first designed when Lockheed Martin won the JSF contract over Boeing for a project to supply Nato members with a new generation of fast fighter jet with stealth technology, which makes it virtually invisible to radar.
The first of this version took flight in December 2006 and is due to be the backbone of Nato airforces, including the RAF.
The UK versions of these jets are expected to be based at RAF Lossiemouth in Moray.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/coalition-set-for-defence-strategy-u-turn-over-carrier-jets-1-2238017
Boeing's F/A-XX en UCLASS
Nieuwe foto's van model
http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/concept-plane-eye-candy-boeings-fa-xx/
http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/16952/
Navy Looks for New Jet, on Top of Its Trillion-Dollar Model
By Spencer Ackerman
April 17, 2012 On Friday, the Navy quietly released a "market survey" asking the big defense contractors for their "candidate(s)" for "strike fighter aircraft" in the decades to come. Which is a little weird, considering the Pentagon is currently spending a trillion dollars on just such an aircraft: the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.
The stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is supposed to one day make up 90 percent or more of America's combat aviation power. But the program has been hit with all kinds of expensive technical glitches and delays. So the Navy has long hedged against the giant JSF bet by buying more of its beloved F/A-18 Super Hornet; that way, the Navy can keep flying modern fighters, even if the JSFs slip. With this "market survey," the Navy appears to be making a second hedge: a Son of the Super Hornet — one that would come online after the F/A-18s are retired in the 2030s — just in case the JSF flames out entirely.
"That's absolutely not the right interpretation," says Capt. Frank Morley, the Navy's program manager for the Super Hornet and its cousin, the EA-18 jamming Growler. But if the Son of the Super Hornet isn't a hedge against the JSF becoming too expensive for the cash-strapped military, then the aircraft carrier decks of the future may be stocked with redundant planes.
After the Super Hornets retire, the Navy wants "a multi-role strike capability" that can fly from a carrier, according to the "market survey" that the Navy released Friday. Some of its primary missions: "air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS)."
And that sounds suspiciously like the role that the Navy's version of the JSF is supposed to play. That plane, already the most expensive weapons program in the history of mankind, is in serious budget trouble. In addition to newly discovered design flaws, the Government Accountability Office last month found additional problems with its software and safety systems. The military wants the F-35 to ultimately replace nearly every tactical fixed-wing aircraft the Navy, Marines and Air Force fly, but the admiral in charge of the program has backed off the 2018 estimate for when the plane is expected to enter the air fleet.
So the Navy has bought more Super Hornets as delays plague the JSF. At the Navy's annual Sea Air Space convention, Morley self-congratulated by noting that the Super Hornet is "on time, on cost, and on schedule."
But the Son of the Super Hornet, the Navy's survey swears, isn't supposed to be a backup in case the JSF fails. Instead, it will be a "complementary ... asset to the F-35C and an unmanned persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) vehicle with precision strike capability." In other words, it'll fly in a carrier air wing alongside the JSF and the Navy's future carrier-based drone, currently known as the X-47B.
But if so, that raises a question of redundancy. Both the JSF and the post-Super Hornet plane would be performing very similar manned strike missions. (Although the survey doesn't suggest the post-Super Hornet will need to be stealthy, a central asset of the JSF.)
Morley strongly denies that the Son of the Super Hornet poses a threat to the JSF or will replicate its missions. "We are an all-F-18 fleet today," Morley tells Danger Room. "In that 2020-2030 time frame, those decades, we intend to be a Super Hornet-JSF fleet. And then those Super Hornets are going to be aging out, those earlier ones, and we need to be a JSF-and-something-else fleet."
But then what will the something else be? What will keep the Son of Super Hornet from redundancy with the JSF?
"Don't know," Morley concedes. "That's the point of the whole analysis. What do we need it to do? What will the threat be then? What will JSF be able to cover? What additional capabilities might we need? That's all the stuff we're starting to look at now."
Other Navy officials are just as emphatic. "This is prudent planning on the Navy's part," argues Rob Koon, a spokesman for the Navy's tactical aircraft program. "Every airframe needs to have a follow-on replacement." His boss, Marcia Hart, adds, "There has to be something after the Super Hornet."
There's a sense in which that's correct. The program for the Super Hornet replacement, officially called the FA-XX and announced last week in the Pentagon's 30-year aviation plan, might not necessarily yield a new aircraft. It could. But as the program goes on, the brass might decide that the JSF in fact does what the Navy needs a post-Super Hornet plane to do. Or it might even decide that the post-X-47B is a better substitute.
Put another way, it might be best to think of the FA-XX as a placeholder constant, like in physics or math, necessary for making a formula operate, rather than a definite thing on its own.
But there's also a chance that the post-Super Hornet will turn out to be exactly what it sounds like: another strike jet, designed for the seaborne attack missions that the Navy's F-35 variant is supposed to perform. Even 20 years from now, Super Hornet's son could be picking up the JSF's slack.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/super-hornet-jsf/
Dubbele posting, één als nieuw item voor een neuwe AF1
En in fighter ontwikkelingen: de eerste refferentie naar twee types 6e generatie fighters.
New Air Force One debuts in Pentagon planning
The plan, for the first time, notes the emergence of a Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor replacement, dubbed F-X. The Pentagon plans to start spending money on development of this sixth-generation aircraft Air Force aircraft toward the end of the decade.
The Navy's sixth-generation FA-XX — a replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet — is also listed in the plan.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/04/defense-air-force1-aviation-plan-041112/
Wauw, en ik word beticht van het hebben van een dikke stalen waterdichte deur/plaat voor mijn hoofd?
Wauw! :crazy:
Citaat van: Marc66 op 17/04/2012 | 14:45 uur
Wauw, en ik word beticht van het hebben van een dikke stalen waterdichte deur/plaat voor mijn hoofd?
Wauw! :crazy:
In welke context staat deze opmerking?
Het oneindig lang door blijven zeveren over een mogelijk nieuwe ontwikkeling van een fighter die er nooit moet of zal komen in Nederland omdat het ding TE duur is en nagenoeg niets bijdraagt aan welke inzet dan ook. Daarbij, in deze tijd van bezuiniging is het niet erg sociaal om je druk te maken over de evt. aanschaf van een fighter. Dat staat wat raar, er zullen 6000 - 10.000 (mark my words, er volgen er, helaas, meer) ontslagen vallen bij defensie en het lijkt mij verstandiger werkelijk na te denken over hoe je defensie kan behoeden van nog meer ontslag etc. Actief nadenken over waarop bezuinigd kan worden zonder verdere verkoop etc.
Ik begrijp echter dat, helaas het EQ bij een enkeling erg hoog is :(
Je post gaat nergens over, en je leest duidelijk de posts niet goed, dit hele topic staat vol met ideeën die te maken hebben met het voorkomen van verdere verkoop.
Ohh, en je loopt al flink achter, want er verdwijnen gewoon 12000 functies.
Citaat van: Marc66 op 17/04/2012 | 20:09 uur
Het oneindig lang door blijven zeveren over een mogelijk nieuwe ontwikkeling van een fighter die er nooit moet of zal komen in Nederland omdat het ding TE duur is en nagenoeg niets bijdraagt aan welke inzet dan ook. Daarbij, in deze tijd van bezuiniging is het niet erg sociaal om je druk te maken over de evt. aanschaf van een fighter. Dat staat wat raar, er zullen 6000 - 10.000 (mark my words, er volgen er, helaas, meer) ontslagen vallen bij defensie en het lijkt mij verstandiger werkelijk na te denken over hoe je defensie kan behoeden van nog meer ontslag etc. Actief nadenken over waarop bezuinigd kan worden zonder verdere verkoop etc.
Ik begrijp echter dat, helaas het EQ bij een enkeling erg hoog is :(
Beste Marc,
Nu heeft EQ niets te maken met internationale ontwikkelingen op het vlak van gevechtsvliegtuigen, maar als HBO opgeleide medemens verwacht ik dat jij dit begrijpt.
In dit topic gaat het over diverse westerse types als om types van oosters fabricaat en de keuzes van landen, al dan niet voorzien van een motivatie, om voor een bepaalde oplossing te kiezen, waarbij open bronnen de input verschaffen die soms worden verduidelijkt door forum deelnemers met meer feitelijke kennis.
Jouw opmerking heeft overduidelijk betrekking op de Nederlandse situatie, een situatie die duidelijk gecreëerd wordt door verkeerde keuzes en populistische uitspraken door lieden die niet bepaald uitblinken in visionaire eigenschappen.
In mijn optiek zijn Defensie Forum deelnemers betrokken bij de wereld, een wereld die zich niet beperkt tot de grenzen van dit land. DF gebruikers zijn actief binnen de defensieorganisatie, of hebben voor een periode een bijdrage geleverd, anderen hebben een buitengewone belangstelling waarbij de meesten (zonder onderzoek) de krijgsmacht een warm hart toe dragen.
Jouw aanname in deze is niet gebaseerd op feiten maar op een standpunt zonder fundament.
Well said, Jurrien.
Zat me af te vragen: Als ik de topics over opleiden, tenues, internationale fighters en onze bejaarde F-16 bij elkaar neem, vraag ik me af hoe het met het EQ geregeld is op de verschillende faculteiten geschiedenis.
Oh, nee. Dat was iemand anders. :crazy:
Cameron 'has decided on F-35B'
17 April 2012
Prime Minister David Cameron has chosen to revert to ordering the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant for the UK's future aircraft carriers after the move was recommended by military chiefs, it has been reported.
Cameron is said to have resisted the decision after naming the carrier variant F-35C as the government's preferred option in 2010's Strategic Defence and Security Review, but the estimated £1.8bn cost of converting the under-construction Queen Elizabeth class carriers to operate a catapult launch system was reportedly deemed unaffordable.
When the carriers were designed, the then-Labour government had specified that the F-35B would be used.
The Financial Times said that senior British military officials have already told their French counterparts that the UK's carriers will now not be converted to operate 'cats and traps', and thus cannot be made interoperable with French aircraft.
A 'senior Downing Street source' quoted in The Daily Mail said that the Prime Minister's decision must now be "formally looked at by the National Security Council (NSC)", with a final decision by the NSC expected in the next two to three weeks.
The possibility of further delays to the carrier programme were also said to have been a factor in the decision, while the Daily Mail reported that the F-35C may have been too heavy to land on the deck of France's Charles de Gaulle carrier anyway.
Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy said that any decision to revert to the F-35B was a "mess entirely of ministers' own making".
"The aircraft carrier programme goes to the heart of our ability to act in the world but is now confused and incoherent," he said.
"The government's rushed defence review failed to match ends with means. Ministers recognised the value of carrier strike yet cut it for a decade and based our future policy on equipment which may be unaffordable. Ministers overturned and criticised Labour's preferred option but it now appears this was the best option.
"This was all so avoidable. There are now very serious issues around cost, capability and timescale which must be resolved. This disarray is causing deep concern and undermining our country's interests."
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19482
Ik zou het een zeer onverstandige beslissing van de Britten vinden en teken van gebrek aan visie en logica. Maar blijkbaar wil men niet de mijns inziens verstandigere stap nemen om de F-35 geheel te laten vallen en als interim de Franse Rafale M aan te schaffen. Het geld dat men daarmee bespaard kan dan worden ingeinvesteerd om de carriers wel van een lanceersysteem te voorzien...of die kosten althans te drukken. De Britten kiezen hier dus ergens weer voor een geheel eigen koers, niet Amerikaans (F-35C zou dan logisch zijn) en niet Europees/EU (dan zou de Rafale M de voorkeur hebben). Onbegrijpelijk en kost ze uiteindelijk veel meer geld indirect.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 18/04/2012 | 09:20 uur
Ik zou het een zeer onverstandige beslissing van de Britten vinden en teken van gebrek aan visie en logica. Maar blijkbaar wil men niet de mijns inziens verstandigere stap nemen om de F-35 geheel te laten vallen en als interim de Franse Rafale M aan te schaffen. Het geld dat men daarmee bespaard kan dan worden ingeinvesteerd om de carriers wel van een lanceersysteem te voorzien...of die kosten althans te drukken. De Britten kiezen hier dus ergens weer voor een geheel eigen koers, niet Amerikaans (F-35C zou dan logisch zijn) en niet Europees/EU (dan zou de Rafale M de voorkeur hebben). Onbegrijpelijk en kost ze uiteindelijk veel meer geld indirect.
Het lijkt onlogisch en wellicht zou de keuze voor de Rafale een "slimmere"zijn (geweest). De positieve kant van het verhaal is (lijkt) dat beide nieuwe Britse carriers nu operationeel in de vaart (kunnen) komen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 18/04/2012 | 09:28 uurHet lijkt onlogisch en wellicht zou de keuze voor de Rafale een "slimmere"zijn (geweest). De positieve kant van het verhaal is (lijkt) dat beide nieuwe Britse carriers nu operationeel in de vaart (kunnen) komen.
Dat is ook nog maar de vraag....mogelijk zal er eentje een meer amfibische taak krijgen. Dat zou de hernieuwde keuze voor de F35B ook kunnen verklaren. Maar de uitgelezen kans om samen te werken met de Fransen wordt zo wel om zeep geholpen. Maar misschien heeft dit ook te maken met de Franse beslissing een ander ontwerp te kiezen voor hun 2e carrier. Hoe goed is de Frans Britse samenwerking op dit vlak nog?!
Russia-China Su-35 Fighter Talks Frozen
KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 (RIA Novosti)
Negotiations on the sale of Russian advanced Su-35 Flanker-E fighters to China have been put on hold over Beijing's refusal to buy a large consignment, Russian state-controlled arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on Tuesday.
"We have been promoting the Su-35 fighter on the Chinese market," Rosoboronexport deputy chief Viktor Komardin said.
"However, China only wants to buy a limited number [of aircraft] whereas we want [to sell] a large consignment to make [the deal] economically viable."
He offered no indication of the numbers involved
The negotiations have been ongoing for more than one and a half years.
http://en.ria.ru/world/20120417/172871006.html
Citaat van: Elzenga op 18/04/2012 | 09:32 uur
Dat is ook nog maar de vraag....mogelijk zal er eentje een meer amfibische taak krijgen. Dat zou de hernieuwde keuze voor de F35B ook kunnen verklaren. Maar de uitgelezen kans om samen te werken met de Fransen wordt zo wel om zeep geholpen. Maar misschien heeft dit ook te maken met de Franse beslissing een ander ontwerp te kiezen voor hun 2e carrier. Hoe goed is de Frans Britse samenwerking op dit vlak nog?!
Goede vraag... als alles wordt terug gedraaid en de Fransen kiezen ook nog eens een ander ontwerp voor hun 2e carrier, dan kan je op dit vlak spreken van een gemiste kans.
Nieuw voor mij is: "while the Daily Mail reported that the F-35C may have been too heavy to land on the deck of France's Charles de Gaulle carrier"
Als dit een waar feit is, dan was het met de C variant toch ook lastig/onmogelijk geweest om intensief samen te werken met de Fransen. (wat destemeer een reden was geweest om voor de Rafale M te gaan)
Citaat van: Defencemanagement op 18/04/2012 | 08:12 uur
Cameron 'has decided on F-35B'
Het is wachten/hopen op de volgende U-turn dan. Echt wel zonde hoor, zo'n carrier en dan de minder capabele B variant erop.
Further dramatic F-35 cost increases could force Norway to reconsider programme
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
If there is a further dramatic cost increase on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Norway will reconsider its participation in the programme.
"If there should happen to be something that would really affect the cost curves in the next months, in the next years, all nations including Norway will, of course, reconsider the whole project," says Norway's state secretary for Defence, Roger Ingebrigtsen. "I have no reasons to believe that. I was more nervous two years ago than I am today."
Should something go horribly wrong, however, Norway would be forced to reconsider the programme, he says. But Norway needs the F-35.
"The best we can get is the F-35," Ingebrigtsen says. There is a reason that a nation like Japan, which has signed onto the programme comparatively late, has selected the stealthy fifth-generation jet for its arsenal, he says. But US support for the F-35 is critical.
"I hope the politicians in the United States stay strong on the F-35 programme," he says.
The country will buy 52 of the jets. But even with its increasing oil wealth, the Nordic nation cannot afford to pay for all of those aircraft at the same time. So the country will have to stagger its procurements.
"It's really a huge sum of money," Ingebrigtsen says. "Therefore we have to spread it out."
For Norway, the F-35 is its largest ever defence procurement. The runner-up is Lockheed's own F-16, which Norway bought in 1977, Ingebrigtsen says.
Getting the F-35 on the timeline it has set is important for the country because its F-16s will reach the end of their lives around 2020-2022. The country will start off its procurement with four jets in 2015, which will be used for training. A further six would be purchased in 2017. Later jets would be bought in 2022 through 2023, but buys could stretch through 2024 if necessary.
But Norway wants the US to jointly integrate the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile onto the F-35, and it wants the US to sign onto the programme, Ingebrigtsen says. The weapons could be useful to the US against ships and land targets. After a series of meetings with US officials, Ingebrigtsen says, "We feel [confident] that the United States supports this missile."
Another issue that affects the Norwegian F-35 buy is the installation of a braking parachute to operate on icy runways in the far north. The country needs that parachute for its fleet and if the problem cannot be resolved by 2015, that could delay a Norwegian buy.
"Lockheed Martin needs to solve this," he says. "We need parachutes on the first fighter we procure."
Meanwhile, Norway is in discussions to replace a Lockheed C-130J Hercules that crashed earlier in the year. But the cause of that crash has not yet been discovered, the investigation cannot be completed until the summer when the weather is warmer.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/further-dramatic-f-35-cost-increases-could-force-norway-to-reconsider-programme-370856/
Forum: F-35 Lightning II
F35 drops GBU32 (pit test)
Zie link voor de foto.
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=221752
Israeli F-35s to carry indigenous missiles
The Israeli air force's Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters will be armed with a mix of US- and Israeli-made weapon systems, sources have confirmed.
"At least one main weapon system" for the nation's conventional take-off and landing F-35As will be of Israeli origin, sources related to the issue said on 17 April. The Israeli air force has previously expressed its wish to equip the type with a nationally-developed new-generation air-to-air missile.
One potential candidate is Rafael. The company is already working on a new "Stunner" missile as part of the "David's Sling" rocket interceptor, being developed in cooperation with Raytheon. The same type could also be adapted for use as an air-to-air weapon.
The delivery of a first batch of around 20 F-35s to the Israeli air force is expected in early 2017. Negotiations on a further contract for 20-25 additional aircraft is expected to begin next year.
While the first batch of aircraft will carry the integral electronic warfare system being supplied under the Lockheed-led Joint Strike Fighter programme, it is expected that this will later be "enhanced" by additional units developed in Israel.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israeli-f-35s-to-carry-indigenous-missiles-370819/
F-35 program at risk as Congress zeroes in on costs
By W.J. Hennigan
Los Angeles Times staff
Thu, 04/19/2012 - 3:53pm
The radar-evading F-35 fighter jet, a nearly $400 billion weapons program under development for more than a decade, is facing its worst turbulence since Washington decided to buy it in 2001 — when it was billed as the most affordable, lethal and survivable military aircraft ever built for the U.S. and its allies.
At a time when federal spending is under a microscope, the plan to develop and build 2,443 airplanes is hundreds of billions of dollars over budget. The F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, has been delayed by glitches in its onboard computer systems, cracks in structural components and troubles with its electrical system.
A two-star general serving as the military's project manager was fired over the program's never-ending problems. The Pentagon has delayed orders of the aircraft, and the fighter jet is caught in the middle of a major spending fight in Congress. What's more, the plane has roiled political debate in Canada, the Netherlands and other allies that are picking up 10 percent of the development costs.
The Obama administration wants to delay the purchase of 179 jets to save $15 billion. But there is pressure to cut more. Next week, the Pentagon's F-35 program manager is set to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Although much of the debate is taking place in Washington, the melodrama is being closely watched in Southern California, where much is at stake. Only last week, executives of F-35 maker Lockheed Martin Corp. made an appearance in El Segundo to remind local businesses and aerospace workers that the F-35 will have a huge financial effect in the years to come — pumping an estimated $6 billion into the state's economy and creating 27,000 jobs.
"The state of California has a huge stake in this," said Danny Conroy, one of Lockheed's directors of the F-35 program. "California is the single biggest supplier base for the F-35 in the country."
Northrop Grumman Corp. is one of 260 companies in California that supply the program — far more than any other state. And the subcontractors are feeling the delays that have plagued many aspects of the F-35.
Northrop, for instance, has 1,665 employees in Palmdale, San Diego and El Segundo working on the program. But it is a fraction of the number of people Northrop had expected to hire by now.
In El Segundo, the company makes 100 parts for the stealth fighter jet. As the second work shift began last week, Northrop manager Chip Oppenlander scanned the vast factory floor and remarked on the dozens of unused workstations.
"I expected things to be much busier by now," he said, wringing his large hands. "We've hired about half as many people as initially planned."
The Pentagon's long-term vision is to replace today's fighter fleets, which have an average age of 22 years. It is centered around a plan to develop one basic fighter plane that could — with a few tweaks — be used on runways and aircraft carriers, and hover like a helicopter for joint use by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
The one-size-fits-all approach has never been tried before, and when test flights began in 2006, problems soon followed. The flaws have been so complicated and so costly that they have put the program nearly a decade behind schedule. The program's costs — once estimated at $233 billion — have skyrocketed to about $396 billion, the Pentagon said last month.
Still, the Pentagon remains dedicated to the program, saying the F-35 is vital to national security in the 21st century.
"As part of the defense strategy that the United States went through and has put in place, we have made very clear that we are 100 percent committed to the development of the F-35," said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta last month after a meeting with Mexican and Canadian military leaders. "We absolutely need it for the future."
But the drawn-out development is infuriating to some in Congress because the program was sold as a way to maintain costs and shorten the procurement process by avoiding building three planes on three assembly lines.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., reminded fellow lawmakers of this in December, when he took to the Senate floor to criticize the program.
"The Joint Strike Fighter program has been both a scandal and a tragedy," McCain said. "We are saddled with a program that has little to show for itself after 10 years and $56 billion in taxpayer investment that has produced less than 20 test and operational aircraft."
The Pentagon's latest estimated lifetime costs of the F-35 program — to develop, buy and maintain the planes over 55 years — topped $1.5 trillion.
Loren Thompson, military policy analyst for the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said the estimate is "made up" because it forecasts what inflation and fuel costs will be decades from now. He adds that it would cost the military three to four times more to keep today's fighters flying. "Nobody ever explains that to Congress."
But supporters and critics alike say the escalating price tag represents an inescapable roadblock that Congress must face. The government's track record is clear: The more a plane costs, the fewer it buys.
The Pentagon's aircraft procurement efforts have been fraught with cost overruns, delays and cuts. Two decades ago, officials originally wanted 648 F-22 fighter jets for $139 million per plane. Eventually, the military ended up with only 188 at a price tag of $412 million each.
Before that, the Pentagon wanted 132 new B-2 stealth bombers at about $500 million per plane. It ultimately bought 21 at $2.1 billion each.
The cost per F-35, about $161 million, could keep rising and ultimately push it into a death spiral as well.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., one of the plane's strongest boosters in Congress, acknowledged problems ahead.
"History repeats itself," he said in a recent interview. "At some point, some members of Congress are going to demand that we buy less F-35s. It's inevitable."
Subcontractors across California have spent millions of dollars preparing for what is expected to be decades of work on the F-35 fighter.
Northrop, for instance, has a new, $170 million assembly line in Palmdale. At the 1-million-square-foot complex, there are robots capable of carrying multi-ton plane sections; high-precision laser cutters; and its very own internal GPS system.
It will ultimately be capable of producing one complete fuselage for any of the three F-35 versions without interruption.
The assembly line completed its first fuselage last month and sent it to Lockheed's Fort Worth plant for final assembly.
"We're on track now," said Steve O'Bryan, a Lockheed vice president. "I'm not trying to give this a rosy view or anything: We've had our share of development challenges."
With test flights only about 20 percent completed, O'Bryan said Lockheed is churning out two F-35s a month and plans to deliver four a month by summer.
Workers find the plane's ups and downs nerve-racking. Edwin Salas, a bespectacled 49-year-old inspector with Northrop, works with his 27-year-old son on the program in Palmdale. He's glad that the sections are beginning to be shipped out to Texas.
"We've had our hurdles, but things are being ironed out," he said. "I'm looking to retire on this program. God willing, my son will too."
(c)2012 the Los Angeles Times
Norway ready to reconsider LM F-35 Lightning II programme
Washington, USA - 19 April 2012
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo ... =index.php
"Our Joint Strike Fighter must be equipped with braking parachutes."
"If there should happen to be something that would really affect the cost curves in the next months, in the next years, all nations including Norway will, of course, reconsider the whole project. I have no reasons to believe that. I was more nervous two years ago than I am today" Norway's minister of defence Roger Ingebrigtsen said.
"The best we can get is the F-35. There is a reason that a nation like Japan, which has signed onto the programme comparatively late, has selected the stealthy fifth-generation jet for its arsenal. But US support for the F-35 is critical" he added, specifying that the politicians in the United States must stay strong on the programme.
Norway has planned to buy 52 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II multi-role fighter aircraft; but even with its increasing oil wealth, the nation cannot afford to pay for all of those aircraft at the same time.
In addition, is to be noted that Norwegian F-35s must be equipped with a braking parachute to operate on icy runways in the far North, and this is a compulsory point Oslo specified on its order. "Lockheed Martin needs to solve this. We need parachutes on the first fighter we procure" the minister ended."
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-19058.html
Russia's SU-35 Super-Flanker: Mystery Fighter No More (deel I)
Apr 19, 2012 16:03 EDT
The Russian SU-35 was something of a mystery for many years. Pictures from Russian firms showed different fighter jets carrying that label, even as the aircraft remained a prospective design and research project, rather an active program of record.
Revelations after 2007 began to provide answers. This article explains the sources of the widespread confusion regarding the SU-35's layout and key characteristics, reviews what is now known about the platform, and tracks its development. Those developments are likely to have broad consequences. The aircraft now has a home customer in the Russian Air Force, and the SU-35 is being positioned to succeed most SU-30MK variants as Russia's fighter export of choice within the coming decade. Will its succession bid succeed?
•Which Sukhoi? The SU-35 Platform
•SU-35: Export Prospects [updated]
•SU-35: Contracts and Key Events [updated]
•Additional Readings & Sources
Which Sukhoi? The SU-35 Platform
As one of our readers noted, DID's articles from 2005-2007 seem to describe 2 different SU-35s. One was a mid-life modernized SU-27 Flanker, but there's also a much more re-engineered "SU-35" variant with canards, thrust vectoring, etc. which has been confused with (and possibly redesignated between) the SU-37. So... what do we mean by "SU-35"?
Until very recently, only KnAAPO had listed the SU-35 as a product on its site; Sukhoi now does so as well, but Irkut does not. If this seems confusing, it's because Sukhoi subcontracts production to affiliate firms – IAIA (Irkut) and KnAAPO (Komsomolosk un Amur). Each has their own intellectual property, and their own interests. In addition, the designation "SU-35" has been used in several different contexts over the years. It has been referred to, and even photographed, in ways that referred to both mid-life Flanker upgrades, and canard-equipped next-generation aircraft. KnAAPO's site added the confusion by showing SU-35 pictures on its type page and gallery that display the aircraft both with and without canard foreplanes.
The current "SU-35", which has been definitively described by Sukhoi, appears to be something of a compromise between the upgrade and full redesign visions. Reader assistance, and sources from Sukhoi and various media, offer an outline of its key systems and characteristics.
"...(known as Su-35BM by some sources- ie. T-10BM to the original Su-27s internal T-10S designation). Differences and features largely speak for themselves in the video, but a short summary follows as related in various other sources follows:
1 – N035 Irbis-E PESA (Passive Electronically Scanned Array) Radar, a follow-on to the Bars-M.
2 – No canards
3 – Rear-looking self-defense radar in shorter tail sting
4 – AL-37FU/ 117S thrust-vectoring turbofan engines rated at 142-147kN
5 – Extended high-lift devices with large flaperon occupying the full trailing edge of the wing
6 – L175M Khibiny-M electronic-warfare self-defense system
7 – Reduced-area empennage
8 – Larger Air Intakes
9 – New and lighter systems, including quadruple digital fly-by-wire flight-control system.
10- New man-machine interface with fully-glass cockpit with two large LCD screens and helmet mounted display."
Sukhoi says that the fighter's structures have been reinforced because of the increased takeoff and landing weight of the aircraft, and the front bearing has 2 wheels for the same reason. Performance is touted as 1,400 km/h (Mach 1.14) at sea-level, and 2,400 km/h (Mach 2.26) at altitude, with a ceiling up to 10 km/ 60,000 feet. Sukhoi has not touted loaded supercruise (Mach 1+, with weapons and without afterburners), which is likely to require improved engines. Thrust vectoring adds new dimensions of maneuverability, however, once pilots understand when to use it and when to avoid it.
The SU-35S will also depend on its sensors. It couples an electronically-scanned array radar with a 2-step electro-hydraulic drive unit, which creates a maximum radar beam deflection angle of 120 degrees. The NIIP Tikhomirov Irbis-E passive phased-array can reportedly detect and tracks up to 30 air targets, simultaneously engaging up to 8. It can also reportedly detect, choose and track up to 4 ground targets, and engage 2. Detection ranges of over 400 km/ 240 miles have been reported for airborne targets, which are the easiest, but resolutions are unspecified. Detecting a 747 passenger jet at 400 km is much easier than detecting a JAS-39 Gripen lightweight fighter, and information about the radar's resolution would be needed before its real capabilities would be clear.
Full stealth jets like the F-22A Raptor, of course, create drastic reductions in radar detection range that make them a special case. In an emerging age of stealth fighters, therefore, the 80+ km detection range of the SU-35S' IRST (infra-red search and track) system is very significant.
The SU-30 family has never been especially stealthy, and their overall airframe design limits what one can accomplish in this area. Nevertheless, Sukhoi cites an unspecified amount of "reduced reflectance" for the SU-35 in the X-band, which is a popular choice for modern radars, and in the angle range of plus or minus 60 degrees. Further improvements were made during testing by adding radar-absorbent materials, and removing or modifying protruding sensors that create radar reflection points.
The reported service life of the new aircraft is 6,000 flight hours, with a planned operational life of 30 years. The claimed service life of NPO Saturn 117S thrust-vectoring engines is 4,000 hours. Time will tell.
SU-35: Export Prospects
The SU27/30 Flanker family was designed and built after American had completed its "teen series" (F-14/15/16/18) fighters, and uses lessons from those designs as well as Russia's own approaches. The result was a very extensible design that boasted impressive performance, and quickly became the global fighter reference point among global military planners. Exports followed, and Flanker variants quickly surpassed the MiG-29 as Russia's most popular export fighter.
The SU-35 aims to build on that legacy, as a final bridge to the 5th generation PAK-FA. Three key changes to Sukhoi's circumstances may make a similar level of export success much more difficult.
1. A globalized market.
When it was first introduced, the S-27 family was the main global competitor to any western offerings, and was sold to countries whose ties and access to western technologies were weak. An array of SU-27s were gifted to breakaway Soviet satellites by virtue of being located on their territory, but India and China were its real anchor export customers. Now, SU-35 exports can expect to compete on 2 fronts. On the one hand, a less balkanized global market means that it must compete globally with western offerings that include upgraded American "teen series" fighters; and matured 4+ generation European designs that include Saab's JAS-39 Gripen, France's Rafale, and EADS' Eurofighter. On the other end, it will be competing with Chinese offerings, including the J-11 that Russia correctly accuses China of copying/deriving from the SU-27, the smaller and less expensive 4+ generation J-10, and even the joint Chinese/Pakistani JF-17.
2. The China factor
China has a large inventory of SU-30MKKs, and is also pressing ahead with its J-11, which substitutes Chinese electronics, radars, and engines in an SU-27 family airframe. Russia is very upset by this theft of its intellectual property, which has reportedly hindered sales of its carrier-capable SU-33 variant into the Chinese market. The J-11 is likely to serve as a similar but less capable international export competitor, while serving as a barrier to further Chinese sales on both sides of the table. Prospects may improve if Russia fields the PAK-FA and China has difficulty with its J-XX project, but the J-11 experience can be expected to have lasting effects.
China's questionable status among the roster of future SU-35 customers, and its certain presence as an export competitor, both create more difficult dynamics for SU-35 export success.
3. Other decisions by key markets.
With Eastern European countries no longer buying Russian equipment, the Flanker family's key export markets likely closed, and key emerging markets that have decided to go in different directions, the SU-35's export potential is likely to be much more limited than its predecessors.
India has fielded, and continues to field, the SU-30MKI, a design that includes locally-built electronics, canard foreplanes, and full thrust vectoring. Malaysia has ordered a less customized SU-30MKM variant that uses Russian and French technologies instead. Both of these designs are highly capable, and comparable to the SU-35. India in particular is unlikely to upgrade, as it continues to produce the SU-30MKI and expects to do so for several more years. That removes a major potential market, and this design is even filtering back into Russian orders, as the SU-30SM.
On a similar note, Algeria and Venezuela are inducting less advanced SU-30MK2 and MKAs, which means that future spending is likely to focus on other military areas.
Elsewhere, South Korea has opted for American F-15Ks instead of the SU-35 or European fighters for its F-X buy, and their next competition has skipped the SU-35 to invite the next-generation PAK-FA/ future SU-50. Saudi Arabia, which has become more receptive to purchases from Russia, bought Eurofighters as the future of their air force. Brazil, which could have significantly expanded Russia's Latin American penetration, did not shortlist the SU-35 for the final round of its F-X2 future fighter competition.
The Middle East offers limited opportunities for Russian fighters these days, with some potential among long-standing clients in Libya, Syria, and possibly Iran, but competition from France's Rafale in particular must be expected in Libya, in the wake of Gadhaffi's ouster. Assuming that Libya buys any high-end fighters at all over the next decade. The SU-35 could be useful to other countries in the Middle East, but most are already committed to other suppliers. Success is possible, and it would be important to the platform, but any win would require a breakthrough.
The newly oil-rich countries around Africa's Gulf of Guinea offer easier opportunities, but sales will face competition from China, as well as from the west.
Emerging South Asian markets like Indonesia and Vietnam also offer promise, and are less inclined to buy either Chinese or western fighters, but initial orders from that quarter have involved earlier-generation SU-27/30s, and future orders are likely to be limited.
Overall, the numbers add up far less favorably for the SU-35 than they did for its earlier cousins.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Russias-SU-35-Mystery-Fighter-No-More-04969/
Russia's SU-35 Super-Flanker: Mystery Fighter No More (deel II)
SU-35: Contracts and Key Events
2011 – 2012
Russia buys SU-30SMs; Russian plans to 2020; Final SU-35S model flies; Libya derailment; China impasse.
April 17/12: China. RIA Novosti quotes Russian state-controlled arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on Tuesday, who says that the 18+ month long negotiations to sell Su-35s to China have been put on hold. The Chinese only wanted to buy a few, and the Russians weren't interested in selling them a few templates for Chinese copying efforts.
Rosoboronexport deputy chief Viktor Komardin characterized Russia as wanting "a large consignment to make [the deal] economically viable." Translation: China would have to buy large numbers of SU-35s, under a contract with strict and enforceable cancellation penalties. See also Nov 16/10 entry.
March 30/12: Russia plans. Russian Air Force commander Gen. Alexander Zelin discusses their aircraft acquisition plans under Russia's Weapons Program 2011-2020. Those plans include about 100 SU-35 and SU-30SM fighters put together, and their conflation could be a worrying sign. The VVS also expects to field 60 Sukhoi PAKFA (T-50) stealth fighters by 2020, and intends to buy 140 SU-34 long range strike fighters.
The SU-35's future may ride on how many of the 70 remaining VVS orders before 2020 request it, instead of more SU-30SMs. AIN Online. See also March 16/10 entry.
March 23/12: Russian setback. Russia's own VVS moves to buy 30 SU-30SM fighters, for delivery by 2015. These planes are a version of the canard-winged, thrust-vectoring SU-30MKI/M variant that was developed for India, and has since been exported to Algeria and Malaysia. Which raises the question: why didn't Russia buy 30 more SU-35S fighters? A RIA Novosti article offers one explanation:
"Irkut has been churning out these planes for 10 years thanks to its completely streamlined production method. This means that its products are of high quality, relatively cheap... and will be supplied on time.
It is one thing if, in order to make 30 aircraft, you have to breathe life into an idling plant, to fine-tune (or develop anew) your technological method, buy additional equipment, and – still worse – hire personnel. But it's quite another if you have been manufacturing standardized aircraft for years and years and can easily divert your workforce to produce an "improved" modification for your own country's Air Force.... This approach (buying quickly and on the cheap what can be produced immediately) has been growing in popularity in the Russian military."
There is a contract for 48 SU-35s, but the production rate doesn't appear to be very advanced yet. If Bogdanov's analysis is correct, the SU-35 could have a problem. It would mean that more SU-30SMs become a very attractive near-term choice for the next few years, as Russia's rearmament program kicks into gear. Farther down the road, the T-50 PAK-FA stealth fighter (likely to become the SU-50), will be a priority after 2016 or so. In that scenario, the SU-35 could find itself starved of budgetary oxygen at home, followed by avoidance abroad in favor of the SU-30MKx models that have already been exported to Algeria, India, and Malaysia.
Sept 19/11: Testing. Sukhoi says that its SU-35 fighters have carried out more than 300 test flights at the 929th State Flight Test Center (GLITS), and offers a number of data points regarding the aircraft.
"The maximum ground-level speed is 1,400 km/h, speed at altitude – 2400 km/h, the ceiling – 18 thousand meters. The detection range of targets in the "air-to-air" mode is over 400 km. This is significantly higher than that of the combat aircraft currently in service. The onboard OLS (optical locator station) can detect and track multiple targets at ranges exceeding 80 km.... a new phased antenna array radar with a long aerial target detection range and with an increased number of simultaneously tracked and engaged targets (30 aerial targets tracked and 8 targets engaged plus the tracking of 4 and engagement of 2 ground targets).... The radar signature of the fighter has been reduced by several times as compared to that of the fourth-generation aircraft by coating the cockpit with electro-conducting compounds, applying radio absorption coats and reducing the number of protruding sensors. The service life of the aircraft is 6,000 hours flight hours.... The assigned service life of vectored thrust engines is 4,000 hours."
May 3/11: Final SU-35S model. Sukhoi begins flight tests for its final series production version SU-35S model. Among other things, it marks the program's recovery from the April 26/09 accident. Sukhoi [in Russian] | Russia's RIA Novosti | China's Xinhua | DefenceWeb | Flight International.
Feb 27/11: Libya. Russia's Interfax news agency says that a recent UN embargo on arms sales to Libya, in the wake of the regime's military attacks on demonstrators, could cost Russia $4 billion:
"The already-signed arms deals between Moscow and Tripoli amount to $2 billion, while deals for another $1.8 billion are in the final stage of readiness. In January 2010 the two sides agreed on supply of Russia's small arms, six operational trainers Yak-130 and some armored vehicles for total of $US 1.3 billion. Libya has been supposed to become the first country to get Su-35 fighter jets, the contract to buy 15 jets for $800 million is fully accorded and ready to be signed. Tripoli also expressed interest in buying 10 Ka-52 Alligator assault helicopters, two advanced long range S-300PMU2 Favorit air defense missile system and about 40 short range Panzir C1 air defense complexes for a total over $1 billion. The Libyan military has also discussed possible supply of modern tanks, multiple rocket launcher systems, high speed missile boats etc."
If the civil war drags on long enough, don't be surprised to see a number of these potential sales revived, even as other counter-insurgency related equipment steps to the fore. Russia could wind up finds ways to skirt UN sanctions and support its client, something that has been an issue before with countries like Sudan. China could do the same, and has a long history of supporting civil war factions without regard to human suffering or disposition, in exchange for medium-long term resource deals. Russia Today | AFP.
2009 – 2010
Russia orders 48; KnAAPO gets financing; Crash delays program; Opportunities in China, Libya.
Nov 16/10: China. At Airshow China 2010 in Zhuhai, Rosoboronexport Deputy General Director Alexander Mikheyev tells RIA Novosti that Russia is ready to hold talks with China on selling SU-35 fighter aircraft to the Chinese air force. That's a bit of a surprise, given China's consistent record of buying, copying, and then competing with Russian technologies – see "The China Factor," above. On the other hand, Mikheyev also told RIA Novosti that:
"We have made progress in an understanding of [illegal production of Russian arms in China]. Moreover, all the documents concerning the protection of intellectual property have been signed.... China does not refuse to discuss these issues, which are primarily a concern for Russia."
It would be darkly amusing to many in western defense organizations to have Russia fleeced in arms-related agreements, by a country that follows their own pattern of offering paper guarantees, while doing something else.
Sept 20/10: Financing for KnAAPO. Sukhoi Holding Company the Yuri Gagarin Aviation Industrial Concern (KnAAPO) in , Komsomolsk-na-Amure strikes a financing agreement with Sberbank, the Savings Bank of Russia. The agreement will allow the firm to invest in producing the Russian Air Force's SU-35S orders. Brahmand | Frontier India.
July 23/10: Update. Aviation Week reports from Farnborough 2010. Sukhoi CEO Mikhail Pogosyan says that the Russian air force is still set to take delivery of its first Su-35S by the end of 2010, and the firm issues its own release with test results.
Preliminary testing of Su-35 has now been concluded with 270 flights and 350 flight hours, using 2 rather than 3 aircraft after a fire destroyed one of the prototypes (vid. April 26/09). The NIIP Tikhomirov Irbis passive phased-array radar was also a focus of testing, and moves were made to reduce radar signature by adding radar-absorbent materials and removing protruding sensors. They add:
"Tripoli will likely be the launch export customer [for the SU-35S]. Alexander Mikheev, deputy head of Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-owned arms export agency, confirmed at Farnborough that the contract for delivery of undisclosed number of aircraft to Libya, one of the traditional recipients of Soviet armaments, is expected to be signed this year. The first export production slots are available from 2012."
March 16/10: Russian plans. In "The future of the Russian Air Force: 10 years on", RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik discusses planned buys and pending recapitalization of the Russian Air Force over the next decade:
"According to various media reports, the Ministry wants to buy at least 1,500 aircraft, including 350 new warplanes, by 2020. The fleet would include 70% new equipment at that point, said Air Force Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Alexander Zelin.... The Defense Ministry has now signed contracts for the purchase of 32 Su-34 Fullback advanced fighter-bombers to be delivered by 2013, 48 Su-35 Flanker-E fighters by 2015, 12 Su-27SM Flanker-B Mod. 1 fighters by 2011, 4 Su-30M2 Flanker-C planes by 2011 and 12 Su-25UBM Frogfoot combat trainers. This year, the Defense Ministry intends to sign a contract for the delivery of 26 MiG-29K Fulcrum-D fighters by 2015. Additional contracts for the delivery of at least 80 Su-34s and 24-48 Su-35s are expected to be signed. In all, the Russian Air Force is to receive 240-260 new aircraft of these types. It is hard to say much about the specifications of another 100-110 aircraft, due to be manufactured primarily after 2015. They will probably include 25-30 MiG-35 fighters, another 12-16 Su-30 combat trainers for Su-35 squadrons and 40-60 Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA (Advanced Frontline Aviation Aircraft System) fifth-generation fighters...."
Nov 17/09: Sukhoi announces that it has begun work on Russia's SU-35S contract.
Nov 15/09: Libya. Interfax quotes Rosoboronexport's special missions director and Dubai Airshow delegation chief Mikhail Zavaly:
"Libya wants to buy our aircrafts, including Sukhoi fighter jets and Ilyushin Il-76 military airlifters," Zavaly told Interfax on Sunday. The talks deal with the technical details of the planes offered to Libya, he said. After technical arrangements are approved, "the Russian side will make commercial proposals to Libya," Zavaly said."
Oct 19/09: Libya. Russia's Interfax media agency reports that Libya plans to buy 12-15 Sukhoi Su-35 multirole fighters, another 4 Su-30s as an immediate interim order, and 6 Yakovlev Yak-130 trainer and light attack aircraft aircraft. Reports indicate that a contract could be signed with state arms export agency Rosoboronexport by the end of 2009, or early 2010.
Libya has also been in talks with France to buy its Rafale fighters since late 2007. A Sukhoi deal is likely to end the Rafale's near-term chances in Libya. UPI report.
Aug 18/09: Russia orders 48. The Russian government signs the SU-35's inaugural production contract at the Russian MAKS 2009 air show. The Russian Defense Ministry has reportedly signed a contract with Sukhoi to deliver 48 SU-35s by 2015, plus an interim buy of 12 single-seat SU-27SM and 4 dual-seat SU-30M2 multirole fighters by 2011.
RIA Novosti cites "open sources" that estimate the flyaway cost an SU-35 at about $65 million. This contract should be larger, since it's a new type that must carry the additional costs of training spares stocks, etc. Statements place the contract's value at "over 80 billion" roubles, where RUB 80 billion is currently about $2.51 billion. The contract follows on the heels of RUB 3.2 billion (about $100 million) in capital injected into Sukhoi, and Vnesheconombank head Vladimir Dmitriyev said the national development bank would grant Sukhoi a 3.5 billion-ruble (about $109 million) loan to start SU-35 production. ITAR-TASS | ITAR-TASS re: loans, contract value | RIA Novosti | RIA Novosti's Russia Today | domain-b | Flight International.
April 26/09: Crash. An Su-35 burst into flames and exploded before take-off at the Komsomolosk-na-Amure Aviation Production Association (KNAAPO) Dzemgi flight test aerodrome. Yevgeniy Frolov, one Sukhoi's most experienced pilots, managed to eject safely before the aircraft exploded. The crash may jeopardize the SU-35's expected appearance over Russia's May Day festivities, and will delay testing. To make matters worse, this 2nd operational aircraft was carrying a new NIIP Irbis-E radar set, which will require some effort to replace. The Weekly Standard adds:
"Su-35 programme representatives told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the crash was the fault of one of the NPO Saturn 117S engine's PMC units and not a failure of a fuel pump, as had been previously reported. "One of the engine's control systems failed and the engine was working at only 93 per cent power," said the representative."
March 23/09: Flight #100. KNAAPO announces that the Su-35 has made its 100th flight, during which they conducted final tests of the flight control system. Flight tests began Feb 18/08, and in the second quarter of 2009 another test aircraft is expected to join the current 2-plane fleet.
The firm expects to bring the number of flights up to 150-160 on 3 fighters, allowing them to finish static tests and start the super-maneuverability mode testing with the plane's thrust-vectoring engines. First deliveries to Russian and foreign customers are still scheduled for 2011.
2007 – 2008
Maiden flight; Eliminated in Brazil.
Oct 2/08: 2nd test plane. Sukhoi says they have started flight tests of the second SU-35 production fighter. "The addition of the second aircraft to the testing program will speed up its completion and ensure the beginning of deliveries to our customers in 2011."
Since its demonstration flight on July 7/08, the first production aircraft has made over 40 more test flights. RIA Novosti.
Oct 1/08: Brazil loss. Brazil has decided on its 3 finalists: Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Aviation's Rafale, and Saab/BAE's JAS-39 Gripen.
EADS Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin's F-16BR, and Sukhoi's SU-35 all failed to make the cut. Brazilian FAB release [Portuguese] | Reuters | Boeing release | Gripen International release.
July 9/08: A Sukhoi release says that it has presented the newest SU-35 multi-role to the "Flight Scientific Research Institute named after Gromov in Zhukovsky near Moscow," where earlier test flights have taken place.
It adds that the SU-35 is one of the priority programs of the new United Aviation Corporation (UAC), resulting from the government's consolidation of Russia's aerospace industry, and notes that Russia's 5th generation PAK-FA fighter project will not be fielded before 2015-2017. In contrast, batch production and deliveries of the SU-35 are promised between 2010-2011. Moscow News | Russian release (English version not yet on web).
March 6/08: Maiden flight. Russia test flies SU-35. The first Su-35 prototype made its maiden flight on Feb 18/08, and 2 more aircraft are being prepared for similar tests at an aircraft manufacturing plant in Russia's Far East. The company expects the jet to enter service with Russia's military in 2-3 years. RIA Novosti.
Sept 4/07: Clarity? A subsequent Flight International article may begin to offer clarity re: the platform. It states categorically that the SU-35-1 design, unveiled at Russia's MAKS 2007 air show, is a single-seat aircraft without canard foreplanes, but with a lighter airframe than the SU-27, enlarged fan and engine inlets, 2 NPO Saturn/Ufa MPO Item 117S engines that reportedly offer thrust vectoring and supercruise performance in clean layout, 2t more fuel, modernized electronics at all levels, a Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis (updated N-011M Bars) passive electronically scanned array radar, 6,000 hour airframe life, and 4,000 hour engine life.
Additional Readings
•RusArm Air Forces Catalog [odd mixed web/PDF format]
•Air Power Australia – Sukhoi Flankers: The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power. Program history, details, regional procurement notes, and analysis of the SU-30 family's current capabilities and likely future upgrades.
•Sukhoi – Su-35
•KnAAPO – THE SU-35 Single-Seat Multi-Role Super-Maneuverable Fighter
•Fighter Tactics Academy – Sukhoi Su-35. By Sergei Drobyshev, Head of the Regional Policy and Marketing Department, KnAAPO
•Aeronautics.RU – Sukhoi Su-35. Caveat: most descriptions written in 1998-2002, but does bring in an interesting variety of sources.
•Ubisoft Forums (Aug 20/04) – How is SU-35UB different from SU-MKK? Reader forum Q&A. Caveat reader.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Russias-SU-35-Mystery-Fighter-No-More-04969/
Apr 20, 2012
Will the Navy Find a New Aircraft that Can Replace JSFail?
By DANA LIEBELSON
The Navy has put out a call for a new fighter jet, which could potentially lead to finding a viable alternative to the most expensive jet of all time: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). As POGO has recommended in the past, replacing certain costly variants of the F-35 could save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. If the Navy successfully finds a new aircraft, it could save even more—even though for now, the agency is denying that it's actively looking for a replacement to the JSF.
According to POGO's Spending Less, Spending Smarter report, the JSF program is costing taxpayers some $385 billion for development and production, and over the coming decades, it's going to require more than $1.1 trillion to maintain and operate. But the Pentagon continues to claim that the aircrafts are worth the price, because we can't survive without them.
But these aircrafts are increasingly unaffordable. The costly B and C models have been beset with delays, found to have design flaws, put on probation, and grounded due to technical problems. Former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Bob Cox that the problems, when taken together, "are a showstopper."
Does that sound like a good investment? We don't think so. In our Spending Less, Spending Smarter report we found that replacing the B and C models with the FA-18 E/F Super Hornets would save taxpayers around $43.64 billion.
According to DEW Line, the Navy has issued its Request for Information on a new fighter jet that can replace the Boeing FA-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G and last into the 2070s.
Finding an alternative to the Super Hornet could save taxpayers even more than we originally outlined in the report and the new aircraft will last longer, says POGO National Security Investigator Ben Freeman.
Freeman points out that "the F/A-18E/Fs are a good option for replacing the B and C models of the F-35, but in 20 years they'll be approaching the end of their service life. Planning for their replacement now is important so the military can avoid the problems with concurrent development and production that have plagued the JSF program."
And what will that replacement aircraft look like?
Freeman says that with "advances in unmanned-aircraft technology, it's not inconceivable that the new aircraft could be unmanned, eliminating human constraints on the aircraft's performance and ensuring that taxpayers get a cheaper aircraft with superior capabilities."
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/04/will-the-navy-find-a-new-aircraft-that-can-replace-jsfail.html
Lockheed Martin F-35 Carrier Variant Completes First Formation Flight
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 20, 2012 – For the first time, two Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35C Lightning II carrier variant test aircraft launched together and conducted formation flying at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., Wednesday. The test aircraft, known as CF-1 and CF-2, were piloted by Navy Cdr. Eric Buus and Marine Corps Lt. Col. Matt Taylor, respectively. The mission tested flying qualities of the aircraft while taking off, landing and flying in formation for more than one hour.
Zie link voor de foto.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/april/120420ae_f-35-completes-formation-flight.html
Fears raised over 'inferior' jets
Military planners have raised fears ministers may order inferior jets for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier to save money.
Labour had originally intended to buy the jump jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but the coalition Government decided to go for the catapult-launched carrier version.
Since then the cost of fitting catapults have spiralled, leading to speculation that the government is set to revert to the original plan.
Ministry of Defence papers seen by the Daily Telegraph compare the two planes in a range of military scenarios, ranging from the Falklands to striking terrorist camps in Chad and a stabilising operation in Saudi Arabia.
The document apparently finds the carrier version proves more effective in most cases.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan.
"As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.
"Unsurprisingly the facts and technical details have matured significantly since any previous assessments of the JSF types.
"As you would expect, the MOD works up a wide range of hypothetical scenarios, many of which are highly unlikely, to scope contingency work as fully as possible."
Copyright © 2012 The Press Association.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/04/2012 | 12:54 uur
Fears raised over 'inferior' jets
Military planners have raised fears ministers may order inferior jets for the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier to save money.
Labour had originally intended to buy the jump jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but the coalition Government decided to go for the catapult-launched carrier version.
Since then the cost of fitting catapults have spiralled, leading to speculation that the government is set to revert to the original plan.
Ministry of Defence papers seen by the Daily Telegraph compare the two planes in a range of military scenarios, ranging from the Falklands to striking terrorist camps in Chad and a stabilising operation in Saudi Arabia.
The document apparently finds the carrier version proves more effective in most cases.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan.
"As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.
"Unsurprisingly the facts and technical details have matured significantly since any previous assessments of the JSF types.
"As you would expect, the MOD works up a wide range of hypothetical scenarios, many of which are highly unlikely, to scope contingency work as fully as possible."
Copyright © 2012 The Press Association.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9217918/Fighter-jets-about-turn-will-harm-capability.html
De vraag blijft: wordt het één carrier met de F35C of toch (uiteindelijk) twee met de B versie?
Mijn voorkeur zou natuurlijk zijn beide carriers operationeel, er zou dan ook nog gekozen kunnen worden voor een mix van B en C wellicht biedt dat laatste het beste compromis.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 21/04/2012 | 14:08 uur
De vraag blijft: wordt het één carrier met de F35C of toch (uiteindelijk) twee met de B versie?
Mijn voorkeur zou natuurlijk zijn beide carriers operationeel, er zou dan ook nog gekozen kunnen worden voor een mix van B en C wellicht biedt dat laatste het beste compromis.
In theorie hebben de F35 modellen zo'n grote parts commonality, reden dat ze zo goedkoop zijn, dat dat een goede optie moet zijn, in de praktijk......
Of misschien twee carriers met minder moderne lanceersystemen en keuze voor voldoende Rafale Ms ;)....lagere kosten en meer optimale samenwerkingsmogelijkheden met de Fransen. Waar de Britten het in de toekomst toch steeds vaker mee zullen moeten klaren. Dat zagen we ook in Libië al en speelt ook in en rond landen als Syrië en het Midden-Oosten in het algemeen. Waar de Fransen historisch gezien ook veel invloed hebben en vanuit EU- en bezuinigingsoogpunt steeds vaker met de Britten zullen moeten gaan optreden. Ik blijf het hopen, waarschijnlijk nog tegen beter weten in, gezien de ook nationalistische tendensen weer en blijvende pogingen van de Amerikanen de EU op dit vlak verdeeld te houden ten baten van de door haar beheerste NAVO.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 21/04/2012 | 14:29 uur
tegen beter weten in, gezien de ook nationalistische tendensen weer en blijvende pogingen van de Amerikanen de EU op dit vlak verdeeld te houden ten baten van de door haar beheerste NAVO.
1. Nationalitische tendensen is iets wat "we" (gelukkig....) toch echt zelf doen.
2. Het is de eigen Europese "schuld" als Amerikaanse pogingen in deze lukken. En een deel van (de) Europ(e)a(nen) wil graag die Amerikaanse link/bemoeienis.
3. Gezien de bijdrage van de VS aan de NAVO vind ik het niet meer dan logisch dat ze de NAVO beheerst. En zonder VS is de rest van de NAVO-EU een tandeloos tijgertje.
O ja, verkeerd topic...... :crazy:
US report questions new MoD fighter aircraft viability
By David Maddox and Tom Peterkin
Published on Sunday 22 April 2012 00:00
THE future of the Ministry of Defence's aircraft carriers programme is in doubt after the US Government auditor released a damning report into the fighter jets that are supposed to fly from Royal Navy vessels.
Scotland on Sunday can reveal America's Government Accountability Office (GAO) has told Congress the viability of the new Joint Strike Fighter is "in question".
The GAO, equivalent to the UK's National Audit Unit, has warned that for the JSF to go ahead it will require "unprecedented levels of funding".
The report raises questions over whether the JSF, already $15 billion over budget, will ever make it to the decks of the UK's carriers.
The Lockheed Martin JSF is a joint project between Nato's allies. The success of the project relies on orders from the US. If the US Government decides to pull out of the project then the UK will have to explore other options.
One possibility would be the MOD ordering a different, possibly technically inferior aircraft, such as the Boeing F18 super hornet.
The GAO report noted how far over budget the project had gone and raised difficulties with the sophisticated, computerised weapons systems and stealth capabilities.
"Development of the critical mission systems that give the JSF its core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky," the report said. "To date, only 4 per cent of the mission system requirements for full capability has been verified."
Crucially it then raised doubts whether the JSF could be produced in large enough numbers. It noted that last year 30 aircraft were supposed to be ready for sale but only nine had been produced and each one of those was at least a year late.
The report said: "The long-stated intent that the JSF programme would deliver an affordable, highly common fifth generation aircraft that could be acquired in large numbers could be in question."
It suggested that if the project were to succeed, governments would have to dig deep into their pockets at a time of austerity.
"As the JSF programme moves forward, unprecedented levels of funding will be required during a period of more constrained defence funding expectations overall."
The report rang alarm bells at Westminster. Labour Dunfermline and West Fife MP Thomas Docherty, a member of the House of Commons Defence Committee, said: "This report highlights serious concerns with the JSF and underlines that the UK Government needs to work closely with the US and other allies as well as Lockheed Martin to sort this project out.
"It is vital for the UK's future defence strategy and the Government have to get it right and we need to see progress being made particularly with the carrier versions."
Yesterday, a leaked MOD document raised fears that ministers are about to perform an embarrassing U-turn by ordering an inferior class of JSF jets for the new aircraft carriers to save money.
Labour wanted to buy the jump jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter, but the Coalition decided to go for the catapult-launched carrier version.Since then, the cost of fitting catapults have spiralled.
Ministry of Defence papers seen compare the two planes in a range of military scenarios and find the carrier version more effective in most cases.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan.
"As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.
"Unsurprisingly the facts and technical details have matured significantly since any previous assessments of the JSF types." of the project then the UK will have to explore other options.
One possibility would be the MOD ordering a different, possibly technically inferior aircraft, such as the Boeing F18 super hornet.
The GAO report noted how far over budget the project had gone and raised difficulties with the sophisticated, computerised weapons systems and stealth capabilities.
"Development of the critical mission systems that give the JSF its core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky," the report said. "To date, only 4 per cent of the mission system requirements for full capability has been verified."
Crucially it then raised doubts whether the JSF could be produced in large enough numbers. It noted that last year 30 aircraft were supposed to be ready for sale but only nine had been produced and each one of those was at least a year late.
The report said: "The long-stated intent that the JSF programme would deliver an affordable, highly common fifth generation aircraft that could be acquired in large numbers could be in question."
It suggested that if the project were to succeed, governments would have to dig deep into their pockets at a time of austerity.
"As the JSF programme moves forward, unprecedented levels of funding will be required during a period of more constrained defence funding expectations overall."
The report rang alarm bells at Westminster. Labour Dunfermline and West Fife MP Thomas Docherty, a member of the House of Commons Defence Committee, said: "This report highlights serious concerns with the JSF and underlines that the UK Government needs to work closely with the US and other allies as well as Lockheed Martin to sort this project out.
"It is vital for the UK's future defence strategy and the Government have to get it right and we need to see progress being made particularly with the carrier versions."
Yesterday, a leaked MOD document raised fears that ministers are about to perform an embarrassing U-turn by ordering an inferior class of JSF jets for the new aircraft carriers to save money.
Labour wanted to buy the jump jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter, but the Coalition decided to go for the catapult-launched carrier version.Since then, the cost of fitting catapults have spiralled.
Ministry of Defence papers seen compare the two planes in a range of military scenarios and find the carrier version more effective in most cases.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan.
"As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.
"Unsurprisingly the facts and technical details have matured significantly since any previous assessments of the JSF types."
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/uk/us-report-questions-new-mod-fighter-aircraft-viability-1-2248784
Citaat van: dudge op 21/04/2012 | 14:24 uur
hebben de F35 modellen zo'n grote parts commonality
Dit is toch maar iets van 30%?
Modernization of Ten Rafale Marine
The first ten Rafale Marine fighters delivered to the French Navy in the early 2000s will be upgraded from their current F1 standard to the latest F3 standard, according to Christophe Carpentier, head of the French defense procurement agency's "Operation Rétrofit F1-F3".
Carpentier says that his mission is to monitor contracts related to this modernization effort, and coordinate the work of different stakeholders. These include Dassault Aviation, MBDA, Thales, Sagem, and government agencies such as the aviation industrial service (SIAé), the Navy and the integrated structure for operational maintenance of defence ministry aviation equipment (SIMMAD).
The first ten Rafale Marine aircraft delivered in the early 2000s were "standard F1" aircraft. They were qualified only for air-to-air operations and for in-flight refueling.
The retrofit operation will radically transform these aircraft, and give them the same operational capabilities as the latest Standard F3 aircraft, which are currently in production.
Specifically, this will translate into new operational capabilities and missions, which will include ground attack, reconnaissance, and the capability for nuclear strike.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/134641/france-to-upgrade-10-rafale_ms-to-latest-f3-standard.html
F1 : Initial deliveries of the Rafale M were to the F1 ("France 1") standard, these had been equipped for the air-to-air interceptor combat duties, but lacked any armaments for air-to-ground operations
F2 : "fully Omnirole F3 standard is capable of undertaking an extremely wide range of roles: air defence/air superiority missions with Mica IR and EM air-to-air missiles, precision attacks with Scalp cruise missiles and AASM Hammer modular air-to-surface armaments, anti-ships strikes with the acclaimed AM39 Exocet sea-skimmer, reconnaissance with the Thales new generation reconnaissance pod, and nuclear deterrence with ASMP-A missiles
FA-XX
•The US Navy has published its request for information to get a replacement for FA-18E/F and EA-18G Growlers "in the 2030 timeframe", following a mention of the tentative aircraft in the latest 30-year aviation funding plan. This is a Pre-Material Development Decision (MDD) market survey, i.e. still very far from an RFP. Once interested contractors have expressed their interest by April 26, they will receive – provided proper levels of clearance – a classified Government Furnished Information (GFI) package that is meant to allow them to submit their response by June 29, 2012.
The desired capability and missions:
CVN based aircraft to provide multi-role capability in an A2AD operational environment. Primary missions include, but are not limited to, air warfare (AW), strike warfare (STW), surface warfare (SUW), and close air support (CAS). Also consider the ability of your concept to provide other capabilities currently provided by strike fighter aircraft, such as organic air-to-air refueling (AAR), Tactical Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA), and airborne electronic attack (AEA). The trade space refinement activity will characterize a broad tradespace, to include unmanned, optionally manned and manned aircraft. System attributes and system capabilities will be considered in the context of cost and affordability. Concepts that are derived from legacy aircraft, "clean sheet" new design aircraft, as well as innovative technology concepts specifically tailored for the operational context are all relevant.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fa-xx-rfi-fa18-replacement-07366/#more-7366
New Fighter Acquisition Uncertainty, Revving Up F-15 Prospects
Recent orders for F-15 fighters from Saudi Arabia are securing the future for the Boeing F-15 production line at least until the year 2018. Beside the Saudi mega deal, South Korea has an ongoing tender for the third phase of the FX, while the US Air Force is looking into possible upgrades to keep its F-15C/Es at least through the decade. The USAF is expected to begin evaluating life extensions for the Eagle soon. Such programs could address avionics, radar and survivability enhancements.
According to Roger Besancenez, Vice President F-15 program at the Boeing Defense company, more prospects for new orders and modernization of existing fighters would keep the line busy beyond 2018.
Besancenez presented the Eagle roadmap to the media at the Singapore Airshow 2012 . He said such prospects are not limited to the FX-3 program in South Korea. Boeing currently support the first two phases of the Korean Slam Eagle (F-15K) program. The last batch of aircraft delivered last month in St. Louis were flown by South Korean crews directly to Nellis, to take part in the Red Flag exercise in Nevada.
F-15 Silent Eagle
The most prominent feature of the F-15 offering in Korea is the Silent Eagle program, converting the F-15 into a balanced stealth platform, retaining the high performance and combat versatility of the F-15 with signature reduction techniques. This stealth capability will be introduced through a range of optional elements, including a conformal weapons bay, canted vertical tails, radar and the use of thermal absorbing materials,
Singapore is also expecting to receive its next batch of F-15SG toward the end of this year, completing the delivery of 24 aircraft, currently representing the most advanced configuration and the first international Eagle to fly an AESA radar. To maximize the benefits of the new sensors and stealth capabilities the advanced Eagle is offered with an optional, advanced cockpit utilizing large area 11×19 inch color displays, enabling the two crew member to understand a situational picture, plan, manage and execute game plans and communicate with other airborne, ground based or naval elements.
Foto's van nieuwe cockpit, front en backseater zie link
The advanced cockpit is expected to be ready for production by 2015. This new cockpit is likely to include the JHMCS II helmet mounted cueing sight system. Boeing is already discussing the roadmap for the follow-on JHMCS with the subcontractor Vision Systems Inc., (VSI). This next generation system will employ much of the technology developed at Elbit Systems for the new Targo all-digital EO tracked helmet sight system. Accordingly, the next version of JHMCS IIT reflects this association, as the new system will employ all the Targo capabilities, including color displays, built-in simulation, embedded INS and more. JHMCS IIH will also employ Targo technology but to a lesser degree. Introduced as an upgrade for existing electromagnetically tracked JHMCS systems, supporting current tracking techniques, interfaces, etc.
Foto Helm, zie link
Saudi Arabia has committed to buy 84 new build fighters, to be produced at St. Louis, MI, while modernizing existing F-15S Eagles to the same standard of the SA in Saudi Arabia. In addition to the low-risk integration of the Raytheon APG -63 V3 AESA radar, derived from the F-15SG, the F-15SA will also feature the digital fly-by-wire flight control system for the first time, and include the all digital electronic countermeasures (DEWS). The aircraft will also support the two outboard weapon stations (1 and 9), which have been provisioned but not been activated so far by other Eagle operators. The added stations will enable the aircraft to carry more weapons loads in more versatile configurations. Another new feature of the F-15SA will be the new wing, which require no programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM), as current aerostructures do.
As the Singaporean and Saudi orders are breathing new life into the Eagle program,encouraging the development of new enhancements. Beyond the AESA radar which is currently operational, production versions of DEWS and digital fly-by-wire are scheduled to begin flight testing by the end of 2012.
Elements of the Silent Eagle are expected to be flown and ready for insertion into production or retrofitted aircraft by 2015, including the RCS signature reduction techniques, canted vertical tails and conformal weapon bay. The aircraft was developed with the Korean FX-2 competition in mind. Therefore, Boeing often highlights the fact that Seoul will share a large part of the aircraft production, with Korean Aerospace slated to produce the conformal weapons bays, and the entire SE maintaining 85% commonality with the current F-15K, claiming a significant advantage in life cycle cost and maintaining high readiness levels of the entire Slam Eagle fleet.
http://defense-update.com/20120215_new-fighter-acquisition-uncertainty-revving-up-f-15-prospects.html
Een mooie vervanger voor onze F-16's....de F-15 SE.............!!!!! Twee squadrons van ieder 28 toestellen !
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 24/04/2012 | 10:27 uur
Een mooie vervanger voor onze F-16's....de F-15 SE.............!!!!! Twee squadrons van ieder 28 toestellen !
;D
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/04/2012 | 10:35 uur
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 24/04/2012 | 10:27 uur
Een mooie vervanger voor onze F-16's....de F-15 SE.............!!!!! Twee squadrons van ieder 28 toestellen !
;D
oke....1 squadron van 4 toestellen dan... >:(
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 24/04/2012 | 10:43 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 24/04/2012 | 10:35 uur
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 24/04/2012 | 10:27 uur
Een mooie vervanger voor onze F-16's....de F-15 SE.............!!!!! Twee squadrons van ieder 28 toestellen !
;D
oke....1 squadron van 4 toestellen dan... >:(
Die 4 zijn voor opleiding in USA, natuurlijk !!
en 56 (2x 28) in Nederland
:big-smile: Dit lijkt me een goed vervangers-keuze !
F-35s Progress Towards Weapons Delivery Flight Testing Later in 2012
The testing program of the Lockheed Martin F-35 is rapidly progressing toward the weapon testing milestone, which will be significant in validating the new fighter's combat capabilities for the first time. Among the testing were pit drops conducted at Pax River, and external carriage flights which included aerial refueling for the first time. A major step forward toward the F-35's warfighting capability was achieved March 29, 2012 at the Naval Air Station at Patuxent River, where the F-35 completed a series of weapon release ground testing, demonstrating release and ejection of weapons configured in nine different combinations inside the F-35s internal weapon bays. Testing included inert versions of the GBU-12 Laser-Guided Bomb, the 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.
The weapons were dropped into a 'pit drop' at the base. Weapons pit-drop testing collects data to measure stresses on the airframe and adjacent stores, ensures proper weapon and suspension equipment function, and validates the separation models for the munitions' ejection characteristics, including trajectories and velocities.
More weapons testing on the F-35B and F-35C carrier variant is ongoing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. Current test events including pit drops, captive carry and instrumented weapons environmental flights, lead-up to flight separation testing scheduled for later this year. The first and second F-35C test aircraft recently performed formation flights over the Atlantic Ocean test range. F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment.
On Saturday, Apr. 21, the conventional takeoff and landing (F-35A) aircraft completed the program's first in-flight refueling mission while configured with external weapons at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. On this test flight the F-35A flew with two external inert AIM-9X weapons and four external stores. Internally, the jet was carrying two Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles. The two-hour mission tested the flying qualities of the aircraft while maneuvering with external weapons. These tests are paving the way for weapons separation testing later this year.
http://defense-update.com/20120424_f35_weapon_testing.html
Via de link een aantal interessante foto's en een video
British Study Determines F-35C Would be More Economical Option Despite Costly Carrier Upgrade
Tamir Eshel April 24, 2012 21:56
As Defense Update wrote before, (1, 2) the British Ministry of Defense (MOD) is evaluating two F-35 variants for its new aircraft carriers – the F-35B Short Take Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) and F-35C Carrier Variant (CV). The UK originally opted for the F-35B but under the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) MOD planned to overcome development delays and rising costs by adopting the F-35C developed for the US Navy, which was considered a more dependable long-term solution.
But it seems the downside of the STOVL means more than costs and timetable. A classified operational analysis prepared for the MOD WAS leaked by the Daily Telegraph casts shadow on the capability of the F-35B to meet the requirements set by the military with at the number of planes currently planned for procurement. The document stated that in order to fulfill the entire mission requirements set by MOD, which could be met by 97 F-35Cs, MOD will have to buy 136 F-35B STOVL 'jump jets', at an extra cost of £2.4 billion.
Nevertheless, British Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to support shifting back to the STOVL variant.
Among the missions these carrier-based fighters will have to perform are support missions in land locked areas such as Afghanistan, or long ranges missions to the Falklands, as well as over-land sorties protecting British interests in the Arabian Peninsula and Africa. In most of these contingencies, transit distance will significantly limit the mission endurance of a STOVL variant, whose fuel capacity has been limited to clear space for the lift fan. The CV variant carries extra fuel tanks in this empty space. Furthermore, the STOVL variant needs more fuel to support the fuel-guzzling hovering for the landing. According to the operational analysis study prepared for the MOD by the Defence Science and Technical Laboratory (DSTL), the F-35B could spend roughly 20 minutes over a target 300 nautical miles away from the aircraft carrier, compared with 80 minutes for the conventional F-35C.
The construction of the Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carriers must match MOD choice of aircraft – protecting the deck surface from the high temperatures created by the jet blast on vertical landing, or adding catapults and arresting cables and extending the deck to support the catapult launch, which will also be able to support the French Rafale fighters on joint missions at sea. The F-35C choice has hidden extra costs as well. Catapults and arresting gear were not included in the original plan of the two carriers. MOD is estimating the conversion of the carriers from theoriginal design to one that supports the F-35C could cost up to £2 billion. MOD claim it cannot support these growing costs within the current budget and austerity plans as dictated by the SDSR.
http://defense-update.com/20120424_which_f35_for_the_uk.html
Shooting down an ANZUS enemyRobert Gottliebsen
Published 6:50 AM, 25 Apr 2012 Last update 6:50 AM, 25 Apr 2012
Our Foreign Affairs Minster, Bob Carr, is one of Australia's greatest students of US history. Australia needs him to put that knowledge to good use because the effectiveness of our ANZUS alliance with the US now faces a long-term danger.
Bob should spend this ANZAC day going back into history to be reminded that his 1950 counterpart, Sir Percy Spender, realised that Australia needed a long-term alliance with the US. Spender's view is just as true in 2012 as it was in 1950.
ANZUS was born because after many knockbacks from US defence and foreign affairs people, Spender gained a 15 minute audience with US President Harry Truman.
For most of the 15 minutes Spender sympathised with Truman over the press treatment of his daughter's singing performance the night before.
With only a few minutes of the 1950 Spender-Truman discussion time still left, Truman asked Spender whether there was anything specific Spender wanted. It was Spender's chance. In those few minutes Truman agreed to an Australia-US alliance and ANZUS was born.
The short treaty is all about peace in the region. Article three of the treaty says:
"The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific".
If America loses air superiority in our the region ANZUS is effectively dead as protection for Australia. America's long-term air superiority depends on the Joint Strike Fighter being successful. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out many times (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16), the JSF development is currently a disaster – so we need to invoke article three and consult with the US. Time is running out.
The Canadian Press is now onto the fact that their parliament has been mislead by their defence department over the JSF. And the new elections in Holland are likely to see Holland pull out of its participation in the JSF program.
Most members of Australia's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade understand the JSF danger (Time for a JSF dogfight, March 23).
In invoking clause three of ANZUS Carr needs to try to help the Americans, because when they realise what has happened to the JSF they could pull out of the program altogether, as whoever wins the presidential elections looks for defence cuts. For Australia that would be a disaster.
What we want the US to do is to merge the JSF program with the F22, which has been sidelined (some say to enable Lockheed Martin to earn greater profits via the JSF). The combination of the two will ensure air superiority of the US well into the future.
Bob, you came back to politics because you want to serve your country. Just as Percy Spender gave us ANZUS you can save it. And I think you are the only person in the parliament who can.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/US-alliance-Bob-Carr-defence-JSF-pd20120424-TN2XP?opendocument&src=rss
RCAF (Royal Canada AF) wonders if F-35 training budget is enough, is it ever?
OTTAWA — The air force has raised questions about whether enough has been budgeted to train pilots for the F-35 stealth fighters.
About $1.3 billion was set aside for training, simulators and other infrastructure under the Harper government's proposed $9-billion capital purchase of the radar-evading jets.
...
That's because it was calculated for the standard Defence Department estimate of 20 years' of flying, rather than the lifetime of the aircraft, which is estimated at 36 years.
The parliamentary budget officer has criticized the government and defence bureaucrats for using the two-decade yardstick to measure F-35 costs when the equipment would remain in service much longer.
.....
"No training option currently affordable," said a July 5, 2010, presentation to the chief of air staff.
...
One of seven scenarios considered assumes all pilot training is conducted at bases in the U.S., with a basic cost of $1.7 billion. Another possibility discussed involved using leased F-35s for training over and above the 65 the air force plans to purchase.
In the end, the military decided to train the initial cadre of pilots at a U.S. Air Force base in Florida, then move training back to Canada within six years, depending on available funding. But the documents noted "there is no (Government of Canada) direction/mandate to maintain a domestic, sovereign pilot conversion and operational training capability."
The Conservatives, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, have insisted no more than $9 billion will be spent on the acquisition. The issue arose again in the aftermath of the auditor general's scathing April 3 report on the program, which suggested the government low-balled the estimated cost. The Tories responded by freezing project funding.
"The government has clearly communicated the budget that we have to replace Canada's aging CF-18s, and we will stay within that budget," Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said in the House of Commons.
.......
Oversight of the program has been handed to a new F-35 secretariat at Public Works, which could be in line for a name change even before its shingle hung up.
......
NDP procurement critic Matthew Kellway said the training documents are another example of where the full life-cycle cost has not been fully disclosed.
"What we've had from DND is inaccurate and incomplete costing of these planes," said Kellway. "This is certainly a concern and speaks to the way this entire project has been managed. Pilots and ground crew need training" over the lifetime of the program.
......
The internal documents, meanwhile, say the air force will need to set aside as many as 17 of its pricey F-35s for training whenever a program is established in Canada. ......
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201204 ... et-120423/
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-19078.html
Thales delivers first production RBE2 AESA radar to Dassault Aviation
30 March 2012
Neuilly-sur-Seine – In February, Thales delivered the first series-produced RBE2 radar with active electronically scanned array (AESA) to the Dassault Aviation facility in Mérignac, France. The radar will now be installed on Rafale C137, the first Rafale with this new capability, which is scheduled for delivery to the French defence procurement agency (DGA) this summer. A comprehensive three-month flight test programme conducted with the first production RBE2 AESA radar at the Istres air base demonstrated the qualities of the radar and confirmed the expected levels of performance prior to delivery to Dassault Aviation.
The RBE2 AESA radar was delivered in line with the contract schedule, demonstrating the new radar's technological maturity and further consolidating Thales's European leadership in radars for combat aircraft.
The RBE2 AESA will give the Rafale a number of key advantages:
•Extended range for full compatibility with the latest-generation long-range missiles, such as the Meteor, combined with the ability to detect low-observable targets
•Higher reliability for reduced cost of ownership (no major maintenance is required on the active array for 10 years)
•Waveform agility for high-resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) imagery and increased resistance to jamming
The Rafale will be the only European combat aircraft under full-scale production with an active-array radar. The operational superiority of this omnirole combat aircraft, which was demonstrated most recently during Operation Harmattan in Libya, is now further assured for the full spectrum of French Air Force and Navy missions relying on the new technology.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/Markets/Defence/2012/30032012_-_Thales_delivers_first_production_RBE2_AESA_radar_to_Dassault_Aviation/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Frances-Rafale-Fighters-Au-Courant-in-Time-05991/
Aerospace industry worries as Tories backtrack on F-35 purchase
STEVEN CHASE AND DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Apr. 24, 2012 8:47PM EDT
The federal government is officially back-tracking on the process of buying the F-35 stealth fighter, part of a reassessment of the purchase that's causing anxiety among Canadian companies hoping to tap billions of dollars in spin-off work for the jets.
The Department of National Defence has issued a significant correction to the "Plans and Priorities" report it tabled in Parliament for MPs last year.
Auditor-General slams F-35 process
In an "erratum" note, it says the 2011-12 report wrongly described the F-35 purchase as being in "definition" project phase, which generally means an item has already received preliminary approval from Treasury Board, the gatekeeper for federal spending.
Instead the decision to buy a next-generation fighter is being reclassified as being in "option analysis" phase, which means Ottawa is still determining what it needs in terms of a plane.
In the note, National Defence blames an unknown bureaucrat for the snafu, saying someone made a "typographical error" in the 2011-12 "Report on Plans and Priorities."
The annual Reports on Plans and Priorities are an important accountability exercise for federal departments, which must file these documents in the Commons each year.
The Conservatives have hit the reset button on the decision to buy the jets following a hard-hitting report by Auditor General Michael Ferguson that criticized DND for withholding information on the purchase from political decision makers.
This back-tracking has introduced uncertainty for the Canadian aerospace industry.
Maryse Harvey, a spokeswoman for the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, confirmed growing concerns in the private sector as Ottawa re-evaluates its F-35 plans.
"If Canada doesn't buy the F-35, there will be an impact on Canada's contribution as a partner and the benefits that we receive from this platform. It will be a proportional impact."
Ms. Harvey said that one of the biggest problems is that companies have to be "state-of-the-art" simply to bid on work on the F-35s, which requires large investments in equipment and training.
She said the government's current stance on F-35 is sowing doubts about its participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program and leaving companies in the dark.
"They have to take risks. Now that they have to assess if the risk is too great at this point or if it is worth it," Ms. Harvey said. "This is where the government's hesitation at this point, the questioning of its decision of July, 2010, is not helping. It's having an impact."
The lure of spin-off economic benefits was a key driver in the Harper government's decision to announce back in July, 2010 that it would purchase the F-35 to replace aging CF-18s.
Companies say they've effectively been put on hold.
"Things have been slowing down," said Suzanne Benoit, president of Aero Montreal, an industry association of some of Canada's biggest aerospace firms.
"The industry is hoping for rapid decisions and for things to move forward, because companies now are in a waiting pattern."
A senior government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insisted that Canada remains an official partner in the F-35 project.
"There is no plan to leave the program," the official said.
The Harper government is tight-lipped about the F-35 project's benefits.
It refuses to identify all the companies that have won F-35 related contracts, saying that would be a breach of privacy.
If Canada decides to buy the F-35, taxpayers will spend upwards of $15-billion to buy and maintain the planes, but so far Canadian companies have only won a combined total of $435-million (U.S.) in deals to supply the F-35 project.
That's up slightly from $350-million (U.S.) last June.
The opposition, however, is seeking to pore through details of the F-35 process to date, which could prolong the uncertainty surrounding the program. The public accounts committee of the House has launched an inquiry into the Auditor-General's report, with the NDP and the Liberal Party seeking to hear from dozens of witnesses on the topic.
However, the Conservative Party, which has a majority on the committee, has agreed only to hear from Auditor-General Michael Ferguson on Thursday and senior bureaucrats from four federal departments on Tuesday.
Initially, the Conservatives tried to delay the appearance by Auditor-General, but relented after the chair of the committee, NDP MP David Christopherson, threatened to quit his position, stating that tradition called on Mr. Ferguson to launch the hearings.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/aerospace-industry-worries-as-tories-backtrack-on-f-35-purchase/article2413199/
Swiss delay Gripen jet delivery to limit costs
ZURICH, April 25 | Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:58pm EDT
(Reuters) - Switzerland will postpone delivery of 22 Gripen jets from Saab by about two years so it can co-ordinate its purchase with a larger deal from Sweden and possibly save on costs, the government said on Thursday.
"We hope... to realise certain synergies in the production and development of the programme," Defence Minister Ueli Maurer said at a news conference.
The Swiss government said it would be advantageous to co-ordinate its acquisition with Sweden's expected purchase of between 60 and 80 planes. The bill for Switzerland's 22 new Gripens would remain below 3.126 billion Swiss francs ($3.43 billion), it said.
Switzerland has wrangled for three years over how to replace its aged Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, purchased in 1976 and 1981. In November the government opted to buy 22 JAS-39 Gripens for a price tag of 3.1 billion Swiss francs ($3.4 bln).
But the purchase of the warplanes has proved controversial, as it will require spending cuts in other areas, such as education and agriculture.
Sweden's parliament is expected to vote on its jet purchase in September, and the Swiss parliament has the Gripen purchase on its agenda for October, a spokeswoman for the Swiss defence ministry said.
The two countries were still in negotiations and further details still had to be ironed out, she also said.
Earlier this month, Switzerland said it would consider alternative bids after test reports published by the SonntagsZeitung newspaper suggested the Gripen did not "meet minimum expected capabilities". ($1=0.9117 Swiss francs) (Reporting by Catherine Bosley; Editing by Mike Nesbit)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/swiss-defence-idUSL6E8FPEMJ20120425
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 26/04/2012 | 08:14 uur
Swiss delay Gripen jet delivery to limit costs
Switzerland will postpone delivery of 22 Gripen jets from Saab by about two years so it can co-ordinate its purchase with a larger deal from Sweden and possibly save on costs, the government said on Thursday.
"We hope... to realise certain synergies in the production and development of the programme," Defence Minister Ueli Maurer said at a news conference.
The Swiss government said it would be advantageous to co-ordinate its acquisition with Sweden's expected purchase of between 60 and 80 planes. The bill for Switzerland's 22 new Gripens would remain below 3.126 billion Swiss francs ($3.43 billion), it said.
Dit biedt natuurlijk een attractieve optie om in te stappen, één gezamelijke order van: Zweden (80), Zwitserland (22) en Nederland (68), totaal 170 Gripen NG....
Ik ben voor! (tenzij de NL order terug loopt naar 40+ kisten, dan geniet mijn voorkeur, zoals bekend, een 2 pitter met meer capaciteiten)
Brazil will get US advanced technology transfers if it buys Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet to upgrade its air force, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said here Wednesday.
The F/A-18 Super Hornet is competing against the Rafale fighter, made by French firm Dassault Aviation, and Swedish manufacturer Saab's Gripen for Brazil's contract for 36 next-generation fighter jets valued at between $4 billion and $7 billion.
Brazil, Latin America's dominant power and the world's sixth largest economy, is now insisting on technology transfer in all its defense agreements.
In a clear sign of Washington's desire to win the lucrative contract, Panetta said: "This offer, which has the strong support of the US Congress, contains an unprecedented advanced technology sharing that is reserved for only our closest allies and partners."
"This offer is about much more than providing Brazil with the best fighter available," he added in an address to a military academy. "With the Super Hornet, Brazil's defense and aviation industries would be able to transform their partnerships with US companies, and they would have the best opportunity to plug into worldwide markets."
On its first visit to Brazil since he was appointed in June last year, Panetta held talks with his Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim in Brasilia Tuesday.
The two inaugurated the new Defense Cooperation Dialogue agreed during President Dilma Rousseff's recent visit to Washington.
Amorim made clear after meeting Panetta that Brasilia's main interest was securing technology transfer from the new alliance proposed by Washington.
In addition to technology transfers, Brasilia also wants some of the jet fighters to be assembled in this country, which according to analysts might favor the Rafale.
In a related development, France's Rafale International consortium signed three agreements with southern Brazilian firms to broaden its technological cooperation if Brasilia picks the Rafale, Jean-Marc Merialdo, head of Dassault's Brazilian unit, said.
"We are taking another step to broaden our cooperation," he told AFP from Porto Alegre.
Since late 2010, the consortium has already organized four seminars in several Brazilian cities to widen its range of partners should the Rafale be selected for Brazil's air force upgrade.
France is offering full technology transfers in its bid to win the contract.
Meanwhile, Brasilia was irked by the US cancelation of a $380 million contract with Embraer to buy 20 AT-29 Super Tucano aircraft from Embraer for the Afghan army.
Embraer and its US partner Sierra Nevada were awarded the contract in December but the US Air Force called off the deal in February after a legal challenge from rival Hawker Beechcraft Corp.
The Pentagon has called for a new round of bidding for the contract, but in any case, the equipment will not be delivered before 2014.
Panetta also said Washington welcomed Brazil's rise as a global power.
"This is a relationship between two global powers, and we welcome Brazil's growing strength. We support Brazil as a global leader and seek closer defense cooperation," he noted.
"We won't agree on every matter -- no two countries, not even the closest allies, ever do. But I do believe that our common interests are so great, and the possibilities that come from our cooperation are so tangible, that we must seize this opportunity to build a stronger defense partnership for the future," Panetta said here.
The Brazilian-US dialogue is also meant to resolve other issues such as the US decision in 2008 to reactivate its Fourth Fleet in the South Atlantic, a strategic and resource-rich area where regional countries do not want any external military presence.
Panetta on Monday began his first Latin America tour in Colombia and was also to visit Chile after Brazil in a bid to boost military cooperation and regional security ties.
© ANP/AFP
F-35 wrong choice for Arctic, retired colonel argues
By Jeff Davis, Postmedia News April 25, 2012
OTTAWA — A retired air force fleet manager fired a salvo at the F-35 Wednesday, saying the strike fighter is ill-suited for Arctic missions and may become obsolete soon after it enters service.
Meanwhile, Liberal defence critic John McKay has asked Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page for a new analysis of the F-35 program costs.
Retired colonel Paul Maillet, an aerospace engineer and former CF-18 fleet manager, said the F-35 does not meet the needs of the government's Canada First Defence Strategy, a key pillar of which is Arctic sovereignty.
"How do you get a single-engine, low-range, low-payload, low-manoeuvrability aircraft that is being optimized for close air support . . . to operate effectively in the North?" he asked.
Maillet called the F-35 a "serious strategic mismatch" to Canada's military needs, and suggested the Royal Canadian Air Force would be better off purchasing a fleet of F-18 E/F fighters.
Committing to purchase a plane that is still in development is financially perilous, Maillet said, adding that the planes are likely to cost much more than $25 billion.
"Development in this business is totally uncertain," he said. "Basically cost performance and schedule goals are high, high risk and in many cases I would say will not happen as you predict today."
Maillet, who twice ran unsuccessfully as a federal Green party candidate, said the billions the government is planning to spend on F-35s would be better used on schools and health care.
Maillet, who now works as an anti-corruption consultant, said a truly competitive bidding process was never held. Instead, he said, the decision was made by the "Old Boys club of air force generals and politicians" under pressure from allies and the "military industrial complex."
The trend lines in aerial combat, Maillet said, point to a not-so-distant future when manned fighter aircraft are a thing of the past. Unmanned drone technology is progressing at a staggering pace, he said, and they will soon be capable of dogfights.
Manned aircraft will struggle to compete with unmanned fighter drones, Maillet said, in part because the human body can only withstand nine or 10 G forces. Drones can tolerate upwards of 30.
Given the pace of drone development, Maillet said, the F-35 could be among last major manned fighter projects. With new drone fighters not too far off, he said, Canada could hold off on a major purchase — and extend the life of the aging CF-18s — until these come to market.
McKay said unmanned drones should be considered for the routine tasks of patrolling the Arctic, especially since some can fly for 20 hours without refuelling and don't put pilots at risk.
"It's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle)," he said. "We do have a huge coastline and UAVs seems to be a reasonable alternative."
The opposition may soon have new ammunition in its opposition to the F-35, once Page completes McKay's request for "an update of the life cycle cost estimate of the F-35."
In a letter to the deputy minister of national defence, Robert Fonberg, dated April 23, Page asks that the Department of National Defence hand over "information and documents" that provide a "full life cycle cost" of the aircraft.
McKay said he turned to the PBO because Parliament can't get a straight answer from the government on the F-35 costs.
"There are numbers flying all over the place," he said. "DND has two sets of books: the $15 billion and $25 billion."
When asked about the upcoming PBO analysis in question period Wednesday, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said Page will receive the information he needs.
"We expect full transparency and accountability from the Department of National Defence when it comes forward to table its updated cost estimates on the F-35 to all Parliamentarians," she said.
NDP Defence Critic Jack Harris said it would be "a first" if DND actually coughed up all the data about the F-35 costs.
"They're going to need some pretty strong direction from the ministers of defence for that to happen," he said. "Even the numbers they've been hiding aren't accurate, so the parliamentary budget officer has a lot of work to do."
It has been a year since Page last gave his take on the F-35 costs, McKay said, so it's time for an update. After releasing that report, McKay said, Page was "trashed and vilified" by the government for his sky-high price estimates, but his estimates have since been proven accurate by other government auditors.
"They're going to have to enter into a massive propaganda campaign to discredit the PBO, the United States Government Accountability Office and the Auditor General," he said. "But I never underestimate the ability of the government to provide disinformation."
What the government really needs to reveal, McKay said, is the Statement of Requirement for Canada's next fighter jet purchase. This so-far-secret document describes what Canada needs in a jet, McKay said, and will shed light on why the government insists the F-35 is needed.
Earlier this month, Auditor General Michael Ferguson delivered a report highly critical of the Defence Department's handling of the F-35 project.
The auditor general's report, released on April 3, indicated Defence Department officials twisted government rules, withheld information from ministers and Parliament, and whitewashed cost overruns and delays afflicting the F-35 program.
The government played more defence on the F-35 file Wednesday, denying it had backtracked on plans to purchase the F-35. Following the auditor general's report, the Department of National Defence made a significant correction its most recent "Report on Plans and Priorities"
In an "erratum" note, the department clarified that the fighter procurement project was in the "option analysis" phase, not the "definition" project phase as was initially stated. A procurement project can only enter the "definition" phase once a specific product has been chosen.
Officials told Postmedia News that no plane has yet been selected, and blamed the confusion on a "typo."
"There was an error found in the documents that was corrected as soon as it was found," said Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for associate defence minister Julian Fantino.
http://www.canada.com/business/wrong+choice+Arctic+retired+colonel+argues/6513252/story.html
Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence
US carrier kit would be really expensive ... says BAE
By Lewis Page
Comment The Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010 was, overall, a total cockup [1]: but there was one major decision in it which made good sense for British servicemen and taxpayers. It now seems more and more likely that Prime Minister David Cameron, prompted by arms mammoth BAE Systems and by the RAF, intends to reverse that move and continue the destruction of British combat power which has been underway now for more than a decade.
That's a lot of doors and lids and motors ... and all stealthed. Ouch.
We refer, of course, to the choice of which version of the F-35 stealth jet the UK is to buy – which determines what equipment Britain's future aircraft carriers will need.
This choice should be nice and simple. The F-35C, intended for catapult launch and tailhook/arrester-wire landing, will be much cheaper than the jumpjet F-35B – both to buy and to operate. It will be unavailable for maintenance far less often (the F-35B is the world's only supersonic stealth jumpjet – it is one of the most complicated machines in the world and will be a maintenance nightmare). The F-35C, unburdened with the B's vertical thrust equipment, will also offer much superior performance.
So the tailhook jet is both better and cheaper. And, perhaps best of all, British carriers equipped with catapults and arrester gear would also be able to play host to many other kinds of tailhook aircraft. This would not only mean that French Rafales or US F-18 Hornets could fly from British decks – it would also mean that the Hawkeye radar craft used by both navies could do so, finally offering the British fleet the proper airborne radar coverage which would have saved so many soldiers' and sailors' lives in the Falklands1.
The only reason that Britain had originally planned in the 1990s to buy the B version of the F-35 was that there was no way back then to fit the carriers with catapults. All naval catapults then in service required supplies of high-power steam to operate: in today's French and US carriers this steam is produced by the ships' nuclear propulsion, but Britain decided it could not afford a nuclear carrier. Thus the British ships are to have gas-turbine engines, which cannot produce steam. Therefore they could not have catapults. (In theory one might add special auxiliary steam boilers just for the cats, but such a design would be nearly as expensive as a nuclear ship and hugely less capable. The UK never seriously considered that plan, though France did for a while.)
But things have changed since the 1990s. America has moved forward and developed new electromagnetic catapults which need only electrical power to operate. A landbased test system has been in operation in the States for some time without problems, and the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is to be installed in the next US supercarrier: CVN-78, aka USS Gerald R Ford. The Ford is now at an advanced state of build and there is no option to revert her to steam. There is no doubt that EMALS is ready for service – despite certain British politicians' recent witless claims [2] to the contrary. It has already shown that it can launch F-35Cs (and Hawkeyes [3]):
It was well known in Britain that this was on the cards, and so HMSs Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth were designed so that they could easily be fitted with catapults should the necessary technology appear. As the British ships are to have electrical transmissions, meaning that they will have ample electrical power to run EMALS without further alteration, installing catapults will be about as simple an operation as one could reasonably ask for.
Given all this it was pretty much a no-brainer to switch the planned UK F-35 order from B to C version, and Mr Cameron duly did so in 2010: making the new carriers hugely more useful at a stroke and saving Britain vast sums of money down the road which would otherwise have been spent on expensive F-35Bs and exotic, custom built vertical-landing radar aircraft.
Good news for the armed forces and the taxpayers, then. Congratulations Mr Cameron. But it was bad news for a much more influential grouping: the British-headquartered arms industry. It was also very bad news for the Royal Air Force.
Jet engine firm Rolls-Royce sometimes gets mentioned in this context. Rolls makes the lift fans and swivelling exhaust nozzles for the F-35B, so they could expect some minor losses of orders with the British shift to the C model. But the US Marines are still going to buy B version F-35s, in much greater numbers than the UK would have done, so it's not a big deal for Rolls-Royce. In any case, Rolls couldn't directly do a lot about the decision.
But the shift offered a very damaging prospect indeed to the real monster of the British arms biz, BAE Systems plc. BAE is nowadays mainly an American company, having shut British factories and fired British employees continually for the last 20 years as it used huge revenues garnered mainly from the UK taxpayer2 to buy up US firms. It now employs many more Americans than it does Brits, and makes most of its money in the States. Nonetheless, the company still owns the great bulk of the remaining UK arms industry as part of its global portfolio and it is most unwilling to release its stranglehold on the MoD's budget.
The shift from F-35B to C in itself wouldn't directly affect BAE much: it is an F-35 subcontractor, but the parts it makes would be used in either version. And, as discussed, Britain's F-35 purchase of a hundred or so jets matters very little among the thousands of orders expected during the life of the programme.
But the catapult carriers are pure poison for BAE nonetheless. Once the UK has a catapult carrier, there will naturally be a push to put some planes on it. No matter what the British government says, there's no realistic prospect of any serious number of F-35Cs being available for much of the ship's early life at the very least. The 2010 SDSR documents projected that Britain would field an air group of just twelve F-35Cs in the early 2020s, and this is almost certainly an overestimate: the F-35C has suffered cost increases and delays since then.
Realistically, on current plans HMS Prince of Wales will arrive in service with catapults all complete in just a few years' time, and barely a handful of British F-35Cs – if any at all – will be available to fill her vast hangars, able to hold 40 planes with ease.
So the only combat planes able to fly from Britain's new flagship will be F-18 Hornets as operated by the US Navy, or Rafales as used by the French. US and French jets were always expected to be visitors to Britain's carriers, of course: but nobody thought they'd be the majority – or only – users.
And once we had some Hornets or Rafales ... my word the Eurofighter and Tornado would start to look bad. Can we see where BAE and the RAF would be upset?
But it would be a simple matter to make sure that many or most of the Hornets or Rafales had "ROYAL NAVY" written on them and Fleet Air Arm pilots in their seats. Both aircraft are available to buy or lease very cheaply right now. Boeing's Hornet production-line has been running for ever, supplying a huge fleet of jets to the US Navy and many international customers. F-18 prices are down and there are deals to be done. The French, having been stymied at every turn, are desperate to sell some Rafales and would do almost anything to shift some.
Should an empty or mostly-empty catapult Prince of Wales go to sea in a few years' time, the Royal Navy could probably borrow some F-18s or Rafales for its pilots to fly for free. And once Boeing or Dassault had their foot in the door, progress would almost certainly be rapid. Hornets and Rafales would be so cheap that quite minor amounts of cash would fill the British decks: the temptation to delay buying the pricey F-35, whose Stealth and other advanced tech is only marginally useful against likely real-world enemies, would be irresistible and a sizeable force of British or partly-British Hornets or Rafales would be more or less certain to appear. Indeed, Flightglobal test pilot Peter Collins tells us that Royal Navy pilots are already flying Rafale and F-18, and notes [4]:
A decision to keep with the F-35C and converting at least one of the RN's Queen Elizabeth-class ships could be ably supported by using an interim fixed-wing type, most probably leased.
This would have terrible knock-on consequences for BAE. The carrier Hornets and/or Rafales would then be the best combat aircraft in the British forces for almost all missions: both aircraft are hugely superior to the RAF's large budget- and personnel-intensive fleet of crappy old Tornado land bombers, which was preserved extremely controversially [5] in the 2010 Review, and both are certainly better for ground-attack than the Eurofighter Typhoon as well.
F-18s or Rafales may well be the Eurofighter's peer in the seldom-required air-to-air mission as well (they are the prime air-superiority fighters of France and the US Navy, after all, and there are indications that the Eurofighter is not all it's cracked up to be [6] in air-to-air). They are surely fine for knocking down export MiGs and Sukhois or antique French planes in Libyan or Iraqi or Falklands style. And – this is the cruncher – their costs per flying hour would be much, much lower than those of the viciously expensive-to-run Tornado and Eurofighter fleets. The Hornet would be cheap to run because it is in service worldwide in vast numbers, and the Rafale would be cheap because the French are so desperate they'd probably throw in free servicing just to get a sale at this point.
So cash-strapped British ministers of the future, contemplating the mounting of air operations somewhere or other, would tend almost always to send the cheap, excellent carrier planes. They would probably do this even if the carriers themselves weren't required: carrier aircraft can fly from land runways without the slightest difficulty.
And BAE's huge revenues for servicing and support to the Tornado and Eurofighter would suffer proportionately, as would its chances of ever again managing to sell any of its European-made products. Disaster. The proposed, vastly expensive upgrade of the Eurofighter's ground-attack capabilities would also look like even worse value for money than it already does [7].
So one can be sure that BAE's colossal force of lobbyists and advocates, which infests Parliament and Whitehall like a whispering plague of cockroaches3, will have swung into action against the catapult ships as soon as the company had time to think about the implications. The prospect of a force of mainly naval Hornets or Rafales under British colours would also be a horrifying one for the Royal Air Force, which would then run a severe risk of not being invited to any future wars, so BAE will have found a ready-made source of allies among the air-marshals.
And better still: BAE is prime contractor on the carriers! Which means it is BAE who gets to set the price for fitting them with catapults, no matter that the job will actually have to be subcontracted to General Atomics in the USA.
Completely unsurprisingly, it's now widely known that the cost of putting catapults on the Prince of Wales has been found, on investigation, to be a hell of a lot more than anybody thought it possibly could be. US officials, learning of this, have actually felt impelled to write to the Defence Secretary [8] to tell him the real figure, not the absurdly inflated one that BAE (endorsed no doubt by anyone the RAF can influence) has been quoting secretly around Whitehall. The Americans have even gone so far as to pledge to cover any increases above General Atomics' price themselves.
That's an excellent deal, isn't it?
But the British government and Ministry of Defence have a long track record of ignoring excellent deals in favour of deals which will channel a lot of money to BAE Systems: and all the more so where this would maintain advantage for the RAF in its endless, frenzied bureaucratic turf war against the other services' air arms4.
Now we hear that the fix is in. If the Times is to be believed, the service Chiefs have unanimously backed a plan to switch back to the F-35B. No surprises in the case of the RAF, of course: but the Chiefs [9] are predominantly Army generals (three out of five) at the moment. Evidently BAE and the airmen have somehow swung the Army to their side. If they have really got Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, head of the Royal Navy, to agree to this too ... well, the best one can say is that Stanhope has betrayed his Service's future. He ought to resign rather than sign up to this.
But he might not think so: perhaps he was offered a deal on some other matter, though quite frankly it's hard to see how any number of frigates, destroyers or even submarines could make up for the loss of carrier air – and lovely affordable proper carrier air soon, too, not viciously expensive carrier air crippled by the need to have vertical (or near-vertical [10]) landing capability on every aircraft, to appear many years hence.
The National Security Council will be considering the Chiefs' recommendation this week, but decisions like this can really only be made by one man: the Prime Minister, as the heads of the armed services need take orders from nobody else in the final analysis. That said, if Stanhope really has been nobbled, his last-resort powers (conferred by Mrs Thatcher on all Service heads in 1984, perhaps as a muted acknowledgement following the Falklands that her government's pre-war plans to strip the navy of its carriers and Harrier jets had been stupid) won't matter. And BAE Systems' colossal political muscle will probably ensure that the politicians on the Council will be listening primarily to their lobbyists.
Bootnotes
1The Royal Navy does have an improvised stopgap solution in place, rushed into service too late for the fighting in the South Atlantic, in which a radar is carried aloft by an ageing Sea King helicopter. However a radar aircraft needs to fly high and stay up for a long time: and helicopters aren't good at either of those. This is a second-rate capability at best.
2People often think that BAE's rump UK operations make a lot of their money from exports, but it's not actually true. The al-Yamamah deal under which Saudi Arabia received crappy Tornado jets, useless JP233 suicide weapons and other things for them to carry, some warships and various other things (including openly admitted vast cash payments into bank accounts controlled by Saudi royals and corporate hospitality on a truly epic scale) is said by BAE to have made the company £40bn, for instance. However a single British deal – providing the Eurofighter Typhoon to the RAF – is planned to cost the MoD this much by the time it eventually completes (in reality it is likely to cost a lot, lot more). The UK BAE empire also makes or made all Britain's warships, submarines, bombers, tanks, artillery and many of its guided and complex weapons (mostly the ones which don't work), so one can see that it has received and will receive hugely more money from the UK treasury than the Saudis. The company's stealthy move across the Atlantic has been funded primarily by decades of colossal British government spending.
3Anyone who has spent much time at Defence-related meetings or hearings in the corridors of power will know that the majority of the people in the room are generally armsbiz lobbyists. And those who aren't – civil servants, politicians, uniformed officers – are often looking forward to a future in which they may take up a lucrative position at an arms company.
4The Army has its own equivalent of the navy's Fleet Air Arm: the Army Air Corps, which operates Apache attack choppers and small Lynx utility craft – but, bizarrely, none of the primary troop-carrying aircraft owing to a bureaucratic landgrab by the RAF at the time of the Suez crisis. Unlike most of the Army's corps and regiments, the AAC is not "Royal", and seems unlikely ever to become so as long as the RAF maintains any influence.
http://www.thenavycampaign.com/2012/04/26/from-the-register-cameron-to-change-his-mind-on-the-one-thing-he-got-right-in-defence/
MoD told to block ministers' 'wasteful' decisions
The MoD's most senior civil servant has been urged to stop ministers taking wasteful procurement decisions.
The Commons public accounts committee questioned permanent secretary Ursula Brennan on the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier programme.
Ms Brennan confirmed that no decision had yet been taken on whether to revert to Labour's plan to buy F-35 jump jets.
Chair Margaret Hodge said that adapting an aircraft carrier to accommodate different jets had cost "billions".
The previous Labour government placed orders for two new aircraft carriers to be equipped with the F-35B variant of the American built Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which is capable of short take-off and vertical landing.
The coalition announced in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that it favoured the F-35C version, which has a longer range and can carry more weapons.
The UK would only need one aircraft carrier to be operational at any one time, ministers decided, and this one would be fitted with "catapult and arrestor" equipment to enable the F-35C to take off and land on it.
The plan would make it easier for the UK to co-operate on defence with allies such as the US and France, ministers believed.
"The last government committed to carriers that would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies," the SDSR read. "It will take time to rectify this error, but we are determined to do so."
The cost of fitting the equipment to the aircraft carrier has since spiralled. Meanwhile, doubts over the capability of the F-35B jets have increased.
The government has not reached a final decision on which aircraft to buy, Ms Brennan said: "The secretary of state for defence [Philip Hammond] wanted to take the time to assure himself about these issues.
"He has been asking us a lot of detailed questions. He then has some discussions he needs to have with his ministerial colleagues, including the National Security Council."
She repeatedly declined to reveal how much the decision to alter the programme had cost so far.
"The expenditure around that further work is the subject of discussion with ministers," she said.
But Ms Hodge, a Labour MP, said the decision to switch to the F-35C had been taken "without a proper understanding of the costs and risks" and she criticised Ms Brennan for having failed to restrain ministers.
"Why on earth don't you exercise a little bit of your accounting officer authority and issue letters of direction to stop ministers taking decisions which end up with the taxpayer having to foot the bill for a massive amount of billions of pounds of torn up notes?" she demanded
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17851845
Exclusive: F-16 gets killed by Typhoon during air combat training in first Eurofighter HUD capture ever.April 26, 2012
The following screenshot comes from a video recorded by the HUD (Head Up Display) of a Eurofighter Typhoon and it is the first (and only) Typhoon HUD capture ever made public.
It shows an F-16 in the wrong place at the wrong time: in front of a high maneuvering plane capable to point its nose when it wants to.
During a dissimilar air combat training (DACT), the "Viper", in clean configuration and maneuvering under high G-forces, is killed by a Typhoon with a gun shot scored while flying at 8,200 feet, less than 5 degrees AOA (Angle of Attack), Mach 0.46, pulling 1.8G.
According to the source who sent it to me, the rest of the video shows that the Typhoon, after downing the F-16, continues maneuvering vertically, accelerating a bit to climb and descend again for a second shot on the same target.
The video answers to the some articles published in 2011 about claims that Pakistan Air Force's pilots scored Typhoon kills during DACT taking place in Turkey, during Ex. Anatolian Eagle. According to such reports, Pakistani pilots on exchange with the Turkish Air Force, and flying TuAF F-16s, scored kills against RAF Typhoons in WVR (Within Visual Range) gun contests (even if no evidence was provided to support claims fueling the theory that the of fighter pilot tall story).
Since I don't think I need to explain once again why DACT WVR is important and why any simulated kill should be taken with grain of salt, let me just add (paraphrasing someone else's words:
"The European Typhoon kicks butts!"
http://theaviationist.com/
Zie link voor de foto.
The Jet That Ate the Pentagon
The F-35 is a boondoggle. It's time to throw it in the trash bin.
BY WINSLOW WHEELER |APRIL 26, 2012
The United States is making a gigantic investment in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, billed by its advocates as the next -- by their count the fifth -- generation of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat aircraft. Claimed to be near invisible to radar and able to dominate any future battlefield, the F-35 will replace most of the air-combat aircraft in the inventories of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and at least nine foreign allies, and it will be in those inventories for the next 55 years. It's no secret, however, that the program -- the most expensive in American history -- is a calamity.
This month, we learned that the Pentagon has increased the price tag for the F-35 by another $289 million -- just the latest in a long string of cost increases -- and that the program is expected to account for a whopping 38 percent of Pentagon procurement for defense programs, assuming its cost will grow no more. Its many problems are acknowledged by its listing in proposals for Pentagon spending reductions by leaders from across the political spectrum, including Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and budget gurus such as former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget.
How bad is it? A review of the F-35's cost, schedule, and performance -- three essential measures of any Pentagon program -- shows the problems are fundamental and still growing.
First, with regard to cost -- a particularly important factor in what politicians keep saying is an austere defense budget environment -- the F-35 is simply unaffordable. Although the plane was originally billed as a low-cost solution, major cost increases have plagued the program throughout the last decade. Last year, Pentagon leadership told Congress the acquisition price had increased another 16 percent, from $328.3 billion to $379.4 billion for the 2,457 aircraft to be bought. Not to worry, however -- they pledged to finally reverse the growth.
The result? This February, the price increased another 4 percent to $395.7 billion and then even further in April. Don't expect the cost overruns to end there: The test program is only 20 percent complete, the Government Accountability Office has reported, and the toughest tests are yet to come. Overall, the program's cost has grown 75 percent from its original 2001 estimate of $226.5 billion -- and that was for a larger buy of 2,866 aircraft.
Hundreds of F-35s will be built before 2019, when initial testing is complete. The additional cost to engineer modifications to fix the inevitable deficiencies that will be uncovered is unknown, but it is sure to exceed the $534 million already known from tests so far. The total program unit cost for each individual F-35, now at $161 million, is only a temporary plateau. Expect yet another increase in early 2013, when a new round of budget restrictions is sure to hit the Pentagon, and the F-35 will take more hits in the form of reducing the numbers to be bought, thereby increasing the unit cost of each plane.
A final note on expense: The F-35 will actually cost multiples of the $395.7 billion cited above. That is the current estimate only to acquire it, not the full life-cycle cost to operate it. The current appraisal for operations and support is $1.1 trillion -- making for a grand total of $1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain. And that estimate is wildly optimistic: It assumes the F-35 will only be 42 percent more expensive to operate than an F-16, but the F-35 is much more complex. The only other "fifth generation" aircraft, the F-22 from the same manufacturer, is in some respects less complex than the F-35, but in 2010, it cost 300 percent more to operate per hour than the F-16. To be very conservative, expect the F-35 to be twice the operating and support cost of the F-16.
Already unaffordable, the F-35's price is headed in one direction -- due north.
The F-35 isn't only expensive -- it's way behind schedule. The first plan was to have an initial batch of F-35s available for combat in 2010. Then first deployment was to be 2012. More recently, the military services have said the deployment date is "to be determined." A new target date of 2019 has been informally suggested in testimony -- almost 10 years late.
If the F-35's performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications -- and it will not -- it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable.
In discussing the F-35 with aviation and acquisition experts -- some responsible for highly successful aircraft such as the F-16 and the A-10, and others with decades of experience inside the Pentagon and years of direct observation of the F-35's early history -- I learned that the F-35's problems are built into its very DNA.
The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. It emerged as a proposal for a very short takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft (known as "STOVL") that would also be supersonic. This required an airframe design that -- simultaneously -- wanted to be short, even stumpy, and single-engine (STOVL), and also sleek, long, and with lots of excess power, usually with twin engines.
President Bill Clinton's Pentagon bogged down the already compromised design concept further by adding the requirement that it should be a multirole aircraft -- both an air-to-air fighter and a bomber. This required more difficult tradeoffs between agility and low weight, and the characteristics of an airframe optimized to carry heavy loads. Clinton-era officials also layered on "stealth," imposing additional aerodynamic shape requirements and maintenance-intensive skin coatings to reduce radar reflections. They also added two separate weapons bays, which increase permanent weight and drag, to hide onboard missiles and bombs from radars. On top of all that, they made it multiservice, requiring still more tradeoffs to accommodate more differing, but exacting, needs of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
Finally, again during the Clinton administration, the advocates composed a highly "concurrent" acquisition strategy. That meant hundreds of copies of the F-35 would be produced, and the financial and political commitments would be made, before the test results showed just what was being bought.
This grotesquely unpromising plan has already resulted in multitudes of problems -- and 80 percent of the flight testing remains. A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. Worse yet, it won't be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission -- or just as importantly, to train pilots -- because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability. The aircraft most like the F-35, the F-22, was able to get into the air on average for only 15 hours per month in 2010 when it was fully operational. (In 2011, the F-22 was grounded for almost five months and flew even less.)
This mediocrity is not overcome by the F-35's "fifth-generation" characteristics, the most prominent of which is its "stealth." Despite what many believe, "stealth" is not invisibility to radar; it is limited-detection ranges against some radar types at some angles. Put another way, certain radars, some of them quite antiquated, can see "stealthy" aircraft at quite long ranges, and even the susceptible radars can see the F-35 at certain angles. The ultimate demonstration of this shortcoming occurred in the 1999 Kosovo war, when 1960s vintage Soviet radar and missile equipment shot down a "stealthy" F-117 bomber and severely damaged a second.
The bottom line: The F-35 is not the wonder its advocates claim. It is a gigantic performance disappointment, and in some respects a step backward. The problems, integral to the design, cannot be fixed without starting from a clean sheet of paper.
It's time for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the U.S. military services, and Congress to face the facts: The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America's air forces deserve a much better aircraft, and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one. The dustbin awaits.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_that_ate_the_pentagon?page=0,1
Cost concerns over F-22 Raptor modernization plan
Keith Stein
The U.S. Air Force expects to invest $9.7 billion into their fleet of F-22 jet fighters to develop and retrofit new capabilities into the complex stealth aircraft, an action the service did not anticipate for the program, putting the Raptor under the congressional microscope.
Fighter aircraft modernization is not new within the Department of Defense (DOD). In fact, the Air Force and Navy have modernized many of their fighter and attack aircraft over the past several decades, like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 programs. These programs each began with the expectation that their aircraft would be upgraded over time, the F-22 did not.
The F-22A began as a single-step program and did not anticipate the need for future modernization. Concerns over the mounting cost of the F-22A modernization prompted an examination by Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The GAO released their report on Thursday that examined the history of the modernization programs of the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and compare those legacy programs with the F-22A modernization program. The F-117A stealth fighter was not included in the report because of the highly classified nature of the program.
To identify differences and similarities between the F-22A modernization program and those of the selected legacy programs (F-15, F-16 and F/A-18), the GAO reviewed official service history documents and current and historical program documents; analyzed program cost, schedule, performance, and quantity data; and spoke with current and former Air Force, Navy, and contractor officials.
F-22A program
The Air Force's F-22A Raptor is the only operational tactical aircraft incorporating a low observable (stealth) and highly maneuverable airframe, advanced integrated avionics, and a supercruise engine capable of sustained supersonic flight.
From the outset, the Air Force's F-22A development strategy was to pursue a quantum leap in capability in a single development program, referred to as a single-step approach, to develop and field a stealthy aircraft with advanced capabilities to replace its aging F-15C/D fleet and perform air superiority missions.
The F-22A acquisition program began in 1991 with an intended development period of 12 years and planned a procurement of 648 aircraft. The system development and demonstration period eventually spanned more than 14 years, during which time threats, missions, and a number of requirements changed. As a result, development costs substantially increased and procurement quantities greatly decreased—resulting in the procurement of only 179 aircraft, plus nine development aircraft. The final Lockheed Martin-built F-22 rolled off the assembly line in December.
Modernization
In 2003, the Air Force established a F-22A modernization program primarily to develop and insert new and enhanced ground attack capabilities that were considered necessary to meet current and future threats. These upgrades were not part of the initial development program. The modernization program is broken into four phases, known as increments, with each phase being made up of multiple projects:
1.Increment 2, the initial phase of modernization, addressed some requirements deferred from the acquisition program and added new ground attack capability. It has been fielded.
2.Increment 3.1 began fielding in November 2011 and adds enhanced radar and enhanced air-to-ground attack capabilities.
3.Increment 3.2A is a software upgrade to increase the F-22A's electronic protection, combat identification, and capability to receive data over DOD's Link-16 data network.
4.Increment 3.2B is expected to increase the F-22A's geolocation, electronic protection, and Intra Flight Data Link capabilities and integrate AIM-9X and AIM-120D missiles.
Some of the key content originally planned for Increment 3.2B has been deferred, the estimated cost of the overall modernization program has doubled, and the schedule has slipped by seven years—which program officials attribute to requirements and funding instability. The most recent program schedule indicates that 3.2B will begin fielding in 2017.
"Based on F-22A flight hour data provided by the program office our analysis indicates that a large number of aircraft are likely to have flown more than 1,500 hours, or nearly 20 percent of their 8,000-hour service lives, before the Increment 3.2B upgrades are fielded," the GAO says.
Taking these modernizations and comparing them to the older F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 programs is not easy.
"Accurately identifying and comparing the total cost of each [aircraft] modernization program is difficult," the GAO says in their report. "Each of the programs, including the F-22A, initially managed and funded modernization as a continuation of its baseline program, so modernization costs and funding were not clearly identified in selected acquisition reports or budget documents."
"The F-22A program is more complex and costly than the legacy programs, primarily because the new capabilities have to be retrofitted onto complex, stealth aircraft that have integrated avionics systems, which, according to program and contractor officials, adds labor hours and cost," the GAO report says. "Legacy modernization programs were less complex, and thus less costly, and incorporated mature technologies onto new production aircraft."
Development of the F-22A took more than 14 years, encountered significant cost increases and quantity reductions, and has not yet fully met established requirements, specifically those related to reliability and maintainability, the GAO report says.
All of the legacy programs encountered difficulties during their initial development programs, yet they all delivered initial increments of operational aircraft within five to seven years.
"When the F-22's mission changed in 2003, the resources—primarily technology and funding—needed to meet the new requirements had not been fully developed or identified," the report says. "As a result, the cost, schedule, and performance projections for the F-22A modernization program were not well founded and, over time, costs have doubled and the delivery of the full required capability has been delayed by more than seven years.
"As DOD pursues more complex and costly fighter aircraft to meet the advanced threats of the future, it is increasingly important that programs begin planning for incremental modernization at the earliest possible point."
The DOD reviewed a draft of the GAO's report and had no formal written comments.
http://www.examiner.com/article/cost-concerns-over-f-22-raptor-modernization-plan
Obama administration raises possibility of sale of new fighter aircraft to Taiwan
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TAIPEI, Taiwan — The administration of President Barack Obama is raising the possibility that it could sell new jet fighter aircraft to Taiwan to help redress the island's air power deficit with China.
If the move goes through, it would infuriate Beijing, which claims the democratic island as its territory and regards all foreign defense sales there as interference in its affairs.
China has 2,300 operational combat aircraft, against only 490 for Taiwan. In September, the U.S. turned down a Taiwanese request for 66 relatively advanced F-16 jet fighters, while agreeing to help Taiwan upgrade its existing F-16 fleet. Critics accused the White House of yielding to pressure from China.
China and Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949. Despite a marked improvement in relations over the past four years, China still threatens to attack across the 160-kilometer-wide (100-mile-wide) Taiwan Strait if Taiwan moves to make its de facto independence permanent.
The possible change in American policy came in a letter Friday from White House director of legislative affairs Rob Nabors to Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas. The letter said that a newly appointed assistant secretary of defense for Asia and Pacific affairs would consider the matter of selling new U.S. warplanes to Taiwan.
"The assistant secretary ... will play a lead role as the administration decides on a near term course of action on how to address Taiwan's fighter gap, including through the sale to Taiwan of an undetermined number of U.S.-made fighter aircraft," Nabors wrote.
Cornyn had been holding up confirmation of the assistant secretary, Mark Lippert, but removed the hold after receiving Nabors' letter.
Taiwan's Defense Ministry welcomed Nabors' letter.
"We welcome and express our gratitude for any acts that may help elevate and strengthen our defense capabilities," the ministry said in a statement.
Any sale of new U.S. combat aircraft to Taiwan would infuriate China, which sees the Taiwan arms issue as the biggest irritant in relations with Washington. It criticizes any Taiwan arms sales in very harsh terms, and routinely suspends defense exchanges with the U.S. to protest them.
Nabors' letter did not specify which U.S. warplane might be sold to Taiwan. However, the Taiwanese have expressed an interest in the F-35, a 5th generation stealth fighter with ground attack and air defense capabilities.
The plane, which is not yet fully operational, is so far slated for inclusion in both the U.S. fighter arsenal and those of a number of close American allies, including Britain, Italy and the Netherlands.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/8bacd59a0cc3406f839a48deccb69cc1/AS--Taiwan-US-Weapons/
India test flies naval variant of LCA
Last Updated: Saturday, April 28, 2012, 09:26
Bangalore: India on Friday joined an elite club of countries by test flying the naval variant of its Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) in this tech hub under a partially cloudy sky.
"With the successful maiden flight of the LCA's naval variant, India joins an elite club of countries capable of designing, developing, manufacturing and testing the fourth generation carrier borne fly-by-wire ski take off but arrested recovery (Stobar) aircraft," said VK Saraswat, scientific advisor to the Defence Minister.
The 20-minute test sortie of the advanced fighter's first naval prototype (NP-1) was piloted by chief test pilot of the Indian Air Force's (IAF) national flight test centre (NFTC) Commodore TA Maolankar and co-piloted by the centre's flight test engineer, Wing Commander Maltesh Prabhu.
"The flight performance was outstanding. The naval variant is the first attempt to provide a complete marine force multiplier that will give unique battle punch to the naval aviation arm of the 21st century to fulfill the national dream of blue waters," an elated Saraswat told reporters here.
Though the Indian naval variant is the second Stobar in the world after the Russian deck based aircraft, it will be the only carrier borne fighter in the light category.
The tandem two-seater aircraft flew within the designated flight envelope and carried out planned tests, including landing gear extension successfully.
"We have flown on the designated flight path up to 30 nautical miles from the base touching a top speed of 450 km from 50 km at take-off and touched an altitude of about 10,000 feet. We also did close formation and slowed down to land smoothly," Maolankar said after the test flight.
Designed and developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) of the state-run Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and built by the defence behemoth Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), the prototype is fitted with General Electric aero engine (F404-GE-IN20), as the indigenously built Kaveri engine of the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) still on the test bed.
Though the naval variant was sanctioned in 2003 with an upfront budget of Rs 1,900 crore towards its design and development cost, the maiden test flight got delayed by about five years due to various factors.
The naval variant is set to replace the ageing fleet of the British built Sea Harrier aircraft of the Indian Navy and complement its fleet of MiG-29 carrier aircraft.
"We are in urgent need of an indigenous aircraft for carrier battle ships as part of our modernisation programme. We were hoping that the first flight would take place in 2007 but is delayed by five years. All-out efforts should be made for the initial operational clearance (IOC) so that we can start flying the aircraft from 2014-15," Deputy Chief of Naval Staff Vice Admiral Satish Soni said.
The Indian Navy has set an ambitious target of inducting about 40 light-weight fighters in its aircraft carrier fleet, including the much awaited Soviet-made Admiral Gorshkov, re-christend INS Vikramaditya.
In the run-up to seeking to certification over the next two-three years, the two-seat trainer (NP-1) and a single seat fighter (NP-2) will be test flown as technology demonstrations on board the Indian Navy's Centaur class aircraft carrier INS Viraat off the Goa coast.
As additional features, the naval version will have a leading edge vortex control surface (levcon) to reduce its forward speed for carrier landing, telescopic landing gear with high sink rate, arrester hook for deck recovery and fuel dump system for emergency deck recovery.
"The aircraft is specifically designed for take off from a 14 degree ramp on the aircraft carrier deck and use the arrester hook system to facilitate landing within the deck length of 90 meters," LCA Navy project director Commodore (retired) CD Balaji said.
Besides Saraswat and Soni, the maiden flight was witnessed by Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, IAF training command commandant Air Marshal Rajinder Singh, HAL chairman RK Tyagi and ADA director PS Subramanyan.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/india-test-flies-naval-variant-of-lca_772129.html
Best een "pittig" stuk! (te groot om in één keer te plaatsen)
29 April 2012 9:41 PMAn open letter to the Prime Minister
http://forbesblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/04/an-open-letter-to-the-prime-minister.html
Citaat van: theaviationist op 30/04/2012 | 16:10 uur
In fact, although the U.S. Air Force pilots told that their plane was undefeated during the exercise, the French were able to score one kill in six 1 vs 1 WVR (Within Visual Range) engagements versus the F-22 (the other 5 ended with a "draw").
Als dat waar is is het een indrukwekkende score.
Citaat van: dudge op 01/05/2012 | 09:57 uur
Citaat van: theaviationist op 30/04/2012 | 16:10 uur
In fact, although the U.S. Air Force pilots told that their plane was undefeated during the exercise, the French were able to score one kill in six 1 vs 1 WVR (Within Visual Range) engagements versus the F-22 (the other 5 ended with a "draw").
Als dat waar is is het een indrukwekkende score.
Ik begin een meer en meer warm gevole te krijgen bij deze kist... ook voor de Klu (maar ja)
US seeks to reassure Italy on costly F-35 fighter
(AFP) – 15 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Pentagon chief Leon Panetta sought to reassure Italy's defense minister over the troubled F-35 fighter program in talks Monday, pledging to hold down costs of the radar-evading warplane, officials said.
During Italian Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola's meeting with Panetta in Washington, the rising price tag for the plane came up "but both leaders expressed a commitment to the program," a US official told AFP.
"The secretary indicated that it's a priority of the (Defense) Department to ensure that costs are kept in line," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Italy recently scaled back its planned purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 131 to 90 as part of wider cuts to military spending.
The move underscored concern among countries backing the F-35 project as repeated technical problems have triggered delays in production, steadily driving up the cost of each jet.
In his talks with Di Paola, Panetta "reiterated the United States commitment to developing the Joint Strike Fighter and the technology advancements both nations will receive as a result of fielding this 5th generation fighter," Pentagon press secretary George Little said in a statement.
Panetta also referred to progress in developing the short-takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) version of the aircraft, the F-35B, one of three variants of the plane that had previously been placed "on probation" due to technical setbacks.
The short-takeoff version "has recently come off probation after catching up to the other variants' testing milestones," Little said.
Italy hopes to purchase the F-35B to replace its an older fleet of Harrier jets for use on a new aircraft carrier.
The Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to form the backbone of the future American air fleet and 11 other allied countries have joined the program.
The Pentagon and the plane's manufacturer, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, have struggled to keep costs under control, with each plane's price tag doubling in real terms over the past decade. The price of each jet is roughly at $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars and the program's overall cost has jumped to nearly $400 billion.
The two defense chiefs also discussed the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21, the Arab spring and Rome's role in the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, Little said.
Copyright © 2012 AFP.
Some F-22 pilots asking not to fly the jet
By
Dave Majumdar
on May 1, 2012 5:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis
While I was unable to attend this (30 April) morning's briefing at Joint Base Langley-Eustis down in Hampton, Virginia, press reports from the event indicate that the US Air Force is admitting that a "small number" of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor pilots are refusing to fly the jet.
"Obviously it's a very sensitive thing because we are trying to ensure that the community fully understands all that we're doing to try to get to a solution," says Air Combat Command chief Gen Mike Hostage as quoted by the Associated Press.
The USAF has not found the root cause of 11 hypoxia-like cases since the Raptor fleet returned to flight in September after a near five-month stand-down. The F-22 fleet has flown about 12,000 times since then.
Incidentally, I had known that several pilots were planning on asking not to fly the Raptor for weeks, but could not report it because it might compromise the sources. I had asked USAF PA to confirm on the record--this appears to be it.
120427-F-KB808-174f22raptor194.JPGHostage told the assembled reporters at Langley that he would get himself checked out in the Raptor and fly the jet until the cause of the F-22's oxygen woes are discovered and fixed.
"I'm going to check out and fly the airplane so I can understand exactly what it is they're dealing with. The day we figure out what the problem is I will stop flying because we don't have enough sorties for all of our combat aviators to get as much training as they need," Hostage says--via AP.
Hostage did address the recent reports of the F-22 deploying to Al Dhafra, in the United Arab Emirates. But he wouldn't confirm where the jet was deployed to, or where the aircraft came from--though the jet has deployed to Al Dhafra before.
However, I have it on good authority that the jets came from the 7th Fighter Squadron at the 49th Wing, based at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. My understanding is that this was simply part of their Air Expeditionary Forces rotation.
Indeed, Hostage says the deployment was previously planned.
Incidentally, I'm off to Marietta, Georgia, in the morning to attend the delivery ceremony for the last jet 10-4195 on 2 May.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/05/some-f-22-pilots-asking-not-to.html
ECA secures funds for NATO aggressor aircraft purchase
By: Craig Hoyle London
NATO's ability to conduct multi-national combat training could be transformed if a 24-aircraft system being proposed by a Dutch-based company takes off.
The integrated opposing force (IOPFOR) concept now being promoted by ECA Program would see a new fleet of privately-owned and operated lightweight fighters provide an aggressor training service for Alliance nations.
Platform candidates include the Chengdu J-10, RSK MiG-35 and Saab Gripen, with ECA chief executive and IOPFOR manager Melville ten Cate expecting to announce a selection in mid-May.
The Schiphol-based company has raised €283 million ($375 million) to support the programme via an asset-backed convertible bond, which was offered from 2-30 April. While this was short of the sought-for total of €430 million, intended to support the purchase of an initial 14 aircraft, ten Cate says "we consider it a success".
"We remain committed to the 14 aircraft, and from a funding perspective we have more than we need for now," he adds.
ECA has previously detailed its plans to acquire a fleet of aircraft equipped with "fifth-generation" characteristics, such as an active electronically scanned array radar, infrared search and track sensors, electronic warfare equipment and supercruise flight performance.
Beyond providing aircraft to exercise against, the IOPFOR model also will include naval vessels, data links, a command and control function and access to commercial satellite imagery, plus further simulated forces.
ECA will support a three-week demonstration and evaluation exercise for NATO and allied air forces over the North Atlantic early next year, which ten Cate says will enable the company to showcase its operating concept in a "no holds barred" scenario. "People don't buy Powerpoint," he notes.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eca-secures-funds-for-nato-aggressor-aircraft-purchase-371328/
USA pegs value of Japanese F-35 deal at $10 billion
By: Greg Waldron Singapore
The USA has assessed the proposed sale of 42 Lockheed Martin F-35A fighter aircraft to Japan at $10 billion.
In a notification to Congress, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency outlined the details of the proposed Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal. The package covers an initial four F-35s and an option to purchase 38 additional aircraft.
In December 2011, Japan selected the conventional take-off and landing variant of the F-35 as the winner of an F-X competition to replace its McDonnell Douglas/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-4 Phantoms. The F-35 defeated rival bids from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon.
The FMS package includes the aircraft, Pratt & Whitney F135 engines - including five spares - electronic warfare systems and other equipment. It also includes logistical support, including software development and integration, spare parts, training and other elements.
At $10 billion, the deal values each aircraft at roughly $238 million, although this number includes a lifetime of support.
While Japan has long desired a stealth fighter - it mounted a long but ultimately futile quest to obtain the Lockheed F-22 - it warned in February that cost rises associated with the F-35 could result in it cancelling its planned order.
In an email to Flightglobal, the Japanese ministry of defence outlined Tokyo's current position on price increases. It said that if the cost increases "without valid reasons, there is a possibility that a procurement could be cancelled".
The email added: "This message is conveyed to the US side occasionally. [The] MoD will continue to request the US government to deliver the aircraft at the price, in accordance with the content of the proposal by the period requested."
Increasing costs within the F-35 programme have been a contentious issue among other future operators, including Australia, Canada and Norway.
Lockheed has said that the F-35A can be delivered for an average unit cost of about $75 million. However, that figure is based on an assumption that the USA and eight Joint Strike Fighter partner countries order more than 3,100 jets in the next 25 years.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usa-pegs-value-of-japanese-f-35-deal-at-10-billion-371362/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/05/2012 | 13:52 uur
At $10 billion, the deal values each aircraft at roughly $238 million, although this number includes a lifetime of support.
Dit kun je dan ook wel aanhouden voor de Nederlandse aankoop ?
$ 10 miljard = € 7,6 miljard euro = 42 toestellen ..... € 181 miljoen per stuk met liftime support (30 jaar = 8000 vlieguren)
maar wel inclusief :
- Pratt & Whitney F135 engines - including five spares (dus 6 F-135 motoren, deze kosten per stuk $ 10 miljoen USD (€ 7,6 mijoen euro))
- electronic warfare systems and other equipment
- logistical support
- including software development and integration
- spare parts
- training
- other elements ....... ??Bovenop deze bedragen komen dus nog de vlieg-uurkosten $ 35.000 USD (€ 26.600 euro)
8000 vlieg-uren x $ 35.000 USD = $ 280 miljoen per toestel x 42 toestellen = $ 11,76 miljard USD (€ 8,94 miljard euro)
Dus bovenop de bovengenoemde $ 10 miljard nog $ 11,76 miljard = $ 21,76 miljard investering voor 30 jaar.
Exclusief eventuele mid-life update's welke uitgevoerd worden binnen die 30 jaar.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/05/2012 | 07:53 uur
ECA secures funds for NATO aggressor aircraft purchase
Meer over ECA (http://www.eca-program.com/eca-nouveau/index.php).
Citaat van: Lex op 02/05/2012 | 19:21 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 02/05/2012 | 07:53 uur
ECA secures funds for NATO aggressor aircraft purchase
Meer over ECA (http://www.eca-program.com/eca-nouveau/index.php).
Ben benieuwd naar realiteit van dit project...of een soort Victor Muller-project? ;)
Citaat van: Elzenga op 02/05/2012 | 19:46 uur
Ben benieuwd naar realiteit van dit project...of een soort Victor Muller-project? ;)
Ik ook.
Ik kan me voorstellen dat het attractief is voor een aantal (NAVO) landen om te kunnen beschikken over een reëele aggressor capacitiet (zoals de Amerikanen) om ze te laten oefenen tegen veronderstelde tegenstanders.
Het voordeel om dit bij een commerciële instelling onder te brengen is natuurlijk geen aggressor kisten op de balans maar simpelweg uurtje factuurtje.
De twijfel is natuurlijk of een dergelijke commerciële club de protocollen en tactieken kent van bijvoorbeeld de Russische of Chinese luchtmacht, immers een MIG 35 e.d. vliegen is leuk maar is alleen waardevol als dit gebeurd volgens de tactieken van de gebruiker(s)
Maar wie weet... misschien binnenkort (ooit) Chengdu J-10, RSK MiG-35 of Saab Gripen boven de vaderlandse polder. (misschien wel de redding van vliegbasis Leeuwarden)
Dan kunnen we meteen de JSF een luchtgevecht laten doen tegen een paar Su-27 om te beginnen... :devil:
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 02/05/2012 | 20:50 uur
Dan kunnen we meteen de JSF een luchtgevecht laten doen tegen een paar Su-27 om te beginnen... :devil:
In een één op één, bye bye Lightning II (en als het niet zo mocht blijken te zijn, dan ben ik zeker een van de eerste die een vergissing zal toegeven)
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 02/05/2012 | 20:50 uur
Dan kunnen we meteen de JSF een luchtgevecht laten doen tegen een paar Su-27 om te beginnen... :devil:
Doe gelijk een Su35.
http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
Australië stelt aanschaf JSF uit
ANP Toegevoegd: donderdag 3 mei 2012, 05:38
Australië zal de aanschaf van de eerste twaalf JSF-straaljagers met twee jaar uitstellen. Door de toestellen pas in 2019 af te nemen bezuinigt de Australische overheid 1,6 miljard Australische dollar (1,25 miljard euro).
Volgens minister Stephen Smith van Defensie komt van uitstel geen afstel. Hij benadrukte dat Australië van plan is om zich aan de gemaakte afspraken te houden. De vertraging van twee jaar wordt volgens Smith veroorzaakt door technische problemen en de nieuwe opleverdatum komt overeen met het tijdschema dat de Amerikanen hanteren.
Begroting
Volgende week maakt de Australische regering de begroting voor het komende jaar bekend. De Labourregering wil in de aanloop naar de verkiezingen uitkomen op een begrotingsoverschot. Ook Defensie wordt bij bezuinigingen niet ontzien. Er wordt onder meer 250 miljoen Australische dollar bezuinigd op artillerie.
Daarnaast wil de Australische regering vervroegd komen met een strategisch plan voor Defensie. Normaal komt zo'n 'white paper' eenmaal per vijf jaar uit, maar volgens premier Gillard zijn de omstandigheden sinds de laatste white paper uit 2009 sterk veranderd.
Afghanistan
Zo ligt er een duidelijk plan voor het vertrek uit Afghanistan. Ook wil Australië haar troepen terugtrekken uit Oost-Timor en de Solomoneilanden.
Behalve de bezuinigingsmaatregelen kondigde de regering ook aan twaalf nieuwe onderzeeërs te willen bouwen. De nieuwe onderzeeërs moeten de huidige Collinsklasse gaan vervangen.
Bron: NOS
Australia Delays F-35 Purchase 2 Years While Japanese F-35 Purchase Raises New Questions About The Cost of Canada's JSF Acquisition
By David Pugliese
Defence Watch
Australia's Defence Minister Stephen Smith says his country will delay buying 12 F-35s by two years as the government tries to reduce the nation's debt.
The delay will save the government between $1.6 billion and $2 billion that was to have been spent next year. "That is an example of where a move, a delay, a deferral of a capability has a significant budget impact," Smith told reporters.
The delay would put Australia on roughly the same timetable as the U.S. for acquisition of the aircraft. "We are now essentially on the same time timetable for delivery of our first batch of joint strike fighters as the United States," Smith added.
Australia's defence plan calls for the purchase of up to 100 F-35s in a program estimated to cost just over $16 billion. However, the official government commitment at this point is for only 14 planes. Australia has warned that it would consider purchasing more Super Hornets if delays in production of the F-35 create a capability gap.
Meanwhile, LEE BERTHIAUME AND JEFF DAVIS of Postmedia have further details on the Japanese acquisition of F-35s and the fallout from that. Here is what they write:
OTTAWA — Hopes that Canada can still buy 65 F-35s for $9 billion appear to have taken another hit this week after it was revealed that Japan will be paying significantly more than some had expected for each of its stealth fighters.
The Defense Security Co-operation Agency, which handles foreign military sales in the United States, notified Congress on Monday of the "potential sale" of F-35s to Japan.
The Japanese deal, which has not yet been concluded, totals $10 billion for 42 F-35s and associated costs like spare parts, training, tools, testing equipment and logistical support.
This works out to about $238 million per aircraft.
In contrast, Canada had budgeted in July 2010 to spend about $138 million for each of its 65 F-35s, when all associated costs are rolled in.
Japan is not a member of the eight-country consortium that has been involved in developing the F-35 since 1997, which means it was expected to pay more for the stealth fighters than countries like Canada.
A U.S. Defense Department official said the pending deal also includes some additional items that Canada does not need because of the latter's close proximity to contractor Lockheed Martin's production facility in Texas.
But Alan Williams, who was responsible for Defence Department procurement until 2005, said those only accounts for a portion of the difference.
The bottom line, he said, is that the F-35 keeps increasing in price for Canada and other potential customers, and the government should proceed with caution.
"It simply suggests that we too shouldn't commit to buying something until we know what it's going to cost," Williams said.
The Defence Department's top bureaucrat, Robert Fonberg, confirmed to Parliament's public accounts committee on Tuesday that the price for each F-35, without associated costs, had risen from $75 million to more than $85 million. Many critics have argued that even this figure is far too low.
A spokesman for Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said in an email that before any decision to purchase a replacement for Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s is made, an independent review of the Defence Department's cost estimates will be made public.
"We have been clear that we have set a budget and we will work within that budget," Chris McCluskey added.
Williams said the government should take careful note of the pending Japanese deal and learn from its experience before moving ahead with its own plans.
"The lesson is look, listen, don't just unilaterally commit to something without surveying the marketplace," he said.
The F-35 will remain in the political spotlight Thursday when Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page appears before a House of Commons committee to discuss his efforts, weeks before the last election, to calculate the cost of purchasing the F-35.
A number of senior bureaucrats from the Defence, Public Works and Industry departments will also return to continue explaining their organizations' roles in the controversial fighter jet project.
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/05/03/australia-delays-f-35-purchase-2-years-while-japanese-f-35-purchase-raises-new-questions-about-the-cost-of-canadas-jsf-acquisition/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 03/05/2012 | 07:21 uur
Australië zal de aanschaf van de eerste twaalf JSF-straaljagers met twee jaar uitstellen. Door de toestellen pas in 2019 af te nemen bezuinigt de Australische overheid 1,6 miljard Australische dollar (1,25 miljard euro).
Speculatief:
Hiermee komt de stap naar de aanschaf van 24 extra F18E, als "gap filler" in hoog tempo dichterbij. Het logische gevolg zou zijn dat daarmee de definitieve Australische JSF order zal uitkomen op 76 ipv 100 toestellen.
Men kan dan beter de Hornet vervangen door de Super Hornet en voor de F-111's een stuk of 25 Strike Eagles aanschaffen.
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/05/2012 | 11:35 uur
Men kan dan beter de Hornet vervangen door de Super Hornet en voor de F-111's een stuk of 25 Strike Eagles aanschaffen.
Verbaasd me niets als het uitkomt op 1 squadron FB35A's en verder SH's
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/05/2012 | 11:35 uur
Men kan dan beter de Hornet vervangen door de Super Hornet en voor de F-111's een stuk of 25 Strike Eagles aanschaffen.
+1
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/05/2012 | 11:35 uur
Men kan dan beter de Hornet vervangen door de Super Hornet en voor de F-111's een stuk of 25 Strike Eagles aanschaffen.
De F-111 is al uitgefaseerd en de 24 (interim / gapfiller) vervangers, zijnde de F-18E/F Super Hornet's stromen nu in.
Zeer waarschijnlijk betekend dat al dat er geen 100 F-35A's worden besteld, maar slechts 76 stuks. Nog geen week geleden, schreef iemand dat al over interim aankopen = definitieve aankopen.
Citaat van: Poleme op 03/05/2012 | 18:36 uur
Citaat van: IPA NG op 03/05/2012 | 11:35 uur
Men kan dan beter de Hornet vervangen door de Super Hornet en voor de F-111's een stuk of 25 Strike Eagles aanschaffen.
De F-111 is al uitgefaseerd en de 24 (interim / gapfiller) vervangers, zijnde de F-18E/F Super Hornet's stromen nu in.
Zeer waarschijnlijk betekend dat al dat er geen 100 F-35A's worden besteld, maar slechts 76 stuks. Nog geen week geleden, schreef iemand dat al over interim aankopen = definitieve aankopen.
Dat is ook na mijn mening de meest voor de hand liggende uitkomst.
En helaas... de meeste F111 (op wat museum- en poortwachter exemplaren na) zijn letterlijk begraven.
French general disputes F-35 'interoperability' argument
By Jeff Davis, Postmedia News May 3, 2012 5:03 PM
OTTAWA — The general responsible for NATO's military hardware says it's not important that countries buy the same fighter jets, punching a hole in the government's argument that it must buy the F-35 for the sake of "interoperability."
NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Stephane Abrial, a former fighter pilot and chief of staff of the French air force, testified before the House of Commons Defence Committee Thursday.
"We do not advocate a single type of aircraft, single type of ships, single type of rifles," Abrial said. "We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal."
Abrial said interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield.
"Interoperability means you are different but you work together," he said. "We look at the fact that when two units, two soldiers fighting side by side, can work together, exchange information and talk to each other."
Defence Minister Peter MacKay has long argued that Canada should buy the F-35 because, with so many NATO allies buying it, it will make for smoother allied operations.
"Being able to participate internationally demands these considerations around interoperability. The F-35 is one example of that," MacKay told reporters in March.
NDP defence critic Jack Harris said the general's comments should serve as a "reality check" for the government.
"I think it diminishes the rationale that has been put forth to buy the F-35," he said.
Liberal defence critic John McKay said "interoperability" is just one of the 10-dollar words the government has thrown around in its attempts to justify an F-35 purchase.
The jet has also been billed as "fifth generation" and "stealth" he said, vague concepts without generally accepted technical meanings.
The general deftly avoided directly weighing in on which plane Canada should choose, but joked Canada should consider the French-built Dassault Rafale.
jdavis@postmedia.com
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Senior official raises F/A-XX doubts while retired USMC Generals question USN's F-35 commitment
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-official-raises-fa-xx-doubts-while-retired-usmc-generals-question-usns-f-35-commitment-371442/
A senior US Department of Defense official is questioning how the US Navy will fund a next-generation replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Meanwhile, retired US Marine Corps flag-officers say that the USN's nascent F/A-XX effort demonstrates the service's lack of commitment to the carrier-variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The US Navy has issued a request for information (RFI) for a new F/A-XX fighter that would start to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030s--effectively starting the search for that aircraft's successor. The USN says that the F-35C will replace the earlier Boeing F/A-18A to D-model jets, but not the larger Super Hornet.
But how the USN hopes to pay for a new tactical fighter programme given the US' fiscal situation is an open question.
"There is no expectation of additional funds for this effort. It is also in direct competition with the next generation bomber for the USAF [US Air Force] and follow-on UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] platforms," a senior DoD official says. "Looking at CV[aircraft carrier] life plans and E/F life plans, points to a 2025 full-on RDT&E [Research, Development, Test & Evaluation] effort in order to meet a 2030 initial LRIP [low rate initial production]."
That, the official says, is "very optimistic."
A bigger problem is that the USN is working on the F/A-XX effort by itself. Not even the US Marine Corps, with which the USN's tactical fighter force is integrated, has had any input into the F/A-XX.
"They once again seem to want to go it alone," the official says, "Big mistake."
But the DoD has ordered the services to fund research and development efforts where ever possible in order to preserve the US industrial base for the future.
"Considering the guidance to fund science, technology and general RDT&E accounts, I expect DoN [Department of the Navy] will get support for this at some level," the official says.
Retired USMC Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former principal deputy director of the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), says that there are lots of reasons to be sceptical about the USN's ability to fund the F/A-XX.
"It's not going to happen," Gardner says. "There's not going to be any money there."
Gardner says that the USN will probably not have any money for the programme in the fiscal year 2014 budget. Nor is it likely that the USN will ever come up with the $20 billion to $30 billion in research and development dollars to fund an F/A-XX development programme.
Gardner estimates the total cost of a new F/A-XX programme to be more than $40 billion and yield a maximum of 150 aircraft. The unit cost, he estimates, could be as much as $125 million per jet.
The USN simply does not have the money to pay for F/A-XX. With the USN's ship-building budgets squeezed, Gardner says that naval aviation accounts will likely end up being raided to help pay for submarines and surface ships.
The only place the money can come from is from within the F-35 programme, Gardner says. "There is a community over there that says 'let's just skip the F-35C, let's just keep buying F/A-18s and we'll go and develop this other airplane,'" he says.
"That's very dangerous for the carrier because it makes the carrier irrelevant. They are not going to have first-day capability. I'm absolutely convinced that if you do not have stealth by the year 2022 to 2025 you will be irrelevant."
Lt Gen George Trautman, a former USMC deputy commandant for aviation, concurs.
"It sort of validates the naval aviators' overall lack of commitment to the F-35," he says. "It shows how much they're in bed with Boeing to include a whole host of retired navy aviators who work for Boeing. And it shows, frankly, their lack of commitment to unmanned systems."
Gardner concurs that the USN's relationship with Boeing is playing a role in the service's push towards a new tactical fighter programme.
"I think it's Boeing. There is a huge Boeing lobby in the navy," Gardner says. "That has a lot to do with it."
(EDIT : en bij de Airforce is de lobby van LM erg groot ;))
The senior DoD official, however, does not believe that the USN is trying to abandon the F-35C or that the F/A-XX threatens the overall JSF programme.
"I don't think it will suck up JSF money," he says. "It would have to come from S&T [science and technology] investments."
The USN, for its part, strongly defends its support for the F-35C.
"The RFI to which you refer does not affect in any way the Navy's continued strong support for our F-35 program of record," the USN says. "The AoA [analysis of alternatives] will study manned, unmanned, and optionally manned alternatives to fill capability requirements associated with a predicted 2030 threat and service life expiration of the Super Hornet airframes."
The service notes that the RFI specifically calls for an F/A-XX aircraft that is complementary to the F-35C. The USN adds that it takes about 20 years to develop a new aircraft.
Gardner says that the USN needs to be careful when embarking on a programme like the F/A-XX. Given the likely cost of developing a new sixth-generation fighter, the service won't be able to buy the 450 to 500 jets it would need to replace the Super Hornet on a one-for-one basis.
"At best this would be some kind of exotic silver-bullet, one squadron per carrier, capability," Gardner says. "I think they ought to be focusing their intellectual as well as their financial resources on making the F-35C the airplane they want it to be."
There are options to increase the F-35C's range, persistence and stealth, Gardner says.
The F-35C would give the USN the volume it needs to recapitalize its tactical fighter force and keep it relevant against future threats, says Gardner-himself a former naval aviator. It would also allow the navy to recapitalize its tactical aviation fleet before the bill comes due to pay for a new USN ballistic missile submarine in the 2020s.
"There is no clear need for the [F/A-XX] aircraft", Gardner says. "To be worthwhile it has to be sixth-gen, which no one even knows what that means," he says.
Trautman says that the USN could argue that an F/A-XX is a hedge against a potential failure of the F-35C to deliver or that emerging threats justify the effort.
The F-35, however, Gardner says, is superior to any potential threat for the foreseeable future.
Trautman says that the USN might become more amenable to operating the F-35C once the first fleet aviators have a chance fly the jet. "What I predict will happen is that when the F-35C starts flying, they're going to fall in love with it," he says. "They're going to realize that it's so much better than the Super Hornet that they'll they're going to want more of them."
De F/A-XX kan ook een prima opvolger worden voor de F-22...die ook geplaagd wordt door problemen (die we mogelijk ook nog terug gaan zien bij de F-35). Door zijn (mogelijk) onbemande inzetmogelijkheid is de F/A-XX sowieso een ander soort toestel dan de F-22/F-35.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 04/05/2012 | 11:57 uur
De F/A-XX kan ook een prima opvolger worden voor de F-22...die ook geplaagd wordt door problemen (die we mogelijk ook nog terug gaan zien bij de F-35). Door zijn (mogelijk) onbemande inzetmogelijkheid is de F/A-XX sowieso een ander soort toestel dan de F-22/F-35.
Al met al lijkt de F35A en C een interim oplossing. Misschien dat de BV Nederland hierdoor eens serieus gaat nadenken over een oplossing tussen 2020 -2030, er vast wel iets beters te verzinnen dan een handje vol F35 die in 2030/40 wellicht achterhaald zijn door nieuwe ontwikkelingen.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/05/2012 | 12:18 uur
Al met al lijkt de F35A en C een interim oplossing. Misschien dat de BV Nederland hierdoor eens serieus gaat nadenken over een oplossing tussen 2020 -2030, er vast wel iets beters te verzinnen dan een handje vol F35 die in 2030/40 wellicht achterhaald zijn door nieuwe ontwikkelingen.
Natuurlijk is de F35 dan achterhaald, echter, dat wil niet zeggen nutteloos. Kijk naar het veld nu, ook nu is er een mix van oude modellen en nieuwe modellen. Vermoedelijk zal China blijven groeien, en de VS in velden gaan matchen, maar dat maakt nog niet dat de iets oudere toestellen opeens nutteloos zijn. Ik denk trouwens dat ook met die hele FAXX voorzichtigheid betracht moet worden. Want het is nog maar de vraag of de onderliggende oorzaken van de problemen bij de F22 en F35 zijn aangepakt. En die zijn niet zozeer technisch, maar politiek.
Citaat van: dudge op 04/05/2012 | 12:49 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 04/05/2012 | 12:18 uur
Al met al lijkt de F35A en C een interim oplossing. Misschien dat de BV Nederland hierdoor eens serieus gaat nadenken over een oplossing tussen 2020 -2030, er vast wel iets beters te verzinnen dan een handje vol F35 die in 2030/40 wellicht achterhaald zijn door nieuwe ontwikkelingen.
Natuurlijk is de F35 dan achterhaald, echter, dat wil niet zeggen nutteloos. Kijk naar het veld nu, ook nu is er een mix van oude modellen en nieuwe modellen. Vermoedelijk zal China blijven groeien, en de VS in velden gaan matchen, maar dat maakt nog niet dat de iets oudere toestellen opeens nutteloos zijn. Ik denk trouwens dat ook met die hele FAXX voorzichtigheid betracht moet worden. Want het is nog maar de vraag of de onderliggende oorzaken van de problemen bij de F22 en F35 zijn aangepakt. En die zijn niet zozeer technisch, maar politiek.
Natuurlijk is de FA/XX een project wat eerst nog maar eens het levenslicht moet zien. Daarnaast zijn er voorzichtig plannen van LM voor een 6e generatie kist vanaf 2030 om de F22 te vervangen.
Het zijn afzonderlijke projecten, blijkbaar heeft men ook in de gaten dat een Zwitsers zakmes (F35 familie) niet de meest efficiënte oplossing is.
Maar zo als altijd, het is een kwestie van: wil en pekunia. (dit naast de technologische ontwikkelingen in het oosten)
press release
May 4, 2012, 1:20 p.m. EDT
Saab: Swiss pilots fly Gripen E/F Test Aircraft in Sweden
LINKOPING, Sweden, May 04, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Under clear blue skies, a team of test pilots and flight test engineers from the Swiss Air Force and the Swiss federal defence procurement agency, Armasuisse, visited Saab (sto:SAABB) in Linkoping in Sweden to perform test flights with the Gripen E/F test aircraft.
On 30 November last year the Federal Council selected Gripen E/F as the preferred candidate to replace the Swiss Air Force's ageing fleet of Northrop F-5E/F Tiger. The Swiss Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports (DDPS) was commissioned to start discussions with Saab and the Swedish Government to optimize Saab's offer. The negotiations continue according to plan and the test flights in Sweden are part of the on-going process.
The three day programme, conducted between 2-4 May, included simulator training and four test flights. The test flights focused on air defense and air policing mission profiles with different weapon configurations, which included IRIS-T as well as both METEOR and AMRAAM.
"We tested the flight performance simulating an operational air defense mission profile. The flight was packed with test points. We were able to perform them all. A successful flight", Lt Col Fabio Antognini, Swiss Air Force
"We performed flight performance tests using an air policing scenario. We simulated a quick reaction alert and a maximum performance intercept to high altitude and supersonic speed. We tested the engine in the entire envelope and are pleased with the results." says Bernhard Berset, Chief Test Pilot at Armasuisse.
The Gripen E/F test programme is running according to plan. In the upcoming fourth phase of testing, Saab continues to integrate new leading-edge technologies which includes further enhancement of the avionics and displays. The radar system will also be further enhanced through the re-installation of a newer version of the AESA radar. The previous test phases have focused on areas such as flight handling, aerodynamics, performance improvements including the new GE F414G engine and increased weapon loads as well as the introduction of new sensors and new avionics in the aircraft.
"The co-operation between the two teams has been truly fantastic. We conducted four test flights with the Gripen E/F test aircraft, which performed, as ever, perfectly. We have really shown the growing capabilities of this aircraft and we demonstrated everything requested, including increased performance, handling and endurance," says Richard Ljungberg, Chief Test Pilot, Saab.
Link to the Swiss Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports (DDPS) press release:
http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/documentation/news/news_detail.44427.nsb.html
www.saabgroup.com
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.
This information was brought to you by Cision http://www.cisionwire.com
SOURCE: Saab
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saab-swiss-pilots-fly-gripen-ef-test-aircraft-in-sweden-2012-05-04
A White Paper By: Lockheed Martin
The F-35: Creating a 21st Century Fighter
Advanced stealth – built in from the beginning – is a defining characteristic for 5th Generation combat aircraft. It is not however the only one.
The F-35 provides a glimpse of the 5th Generation fundamentals in action. From the ground up, the F-35 was built to be an integrated fighter capable of playing a pivotal role in joint and coalition operations. It's designed for the future and developed on a foundation of more than 40 years of real world combat experience.
In a real sense, the F-16 and F-22 were the risk reduction programs for the F-35. Many lessons learned were incorporated into the F-35.
With its integrated systems and software upgradeability, the F-35 is laying the groundwork of ever-evolving capabilities for decades to come. Stealth is just one enabler of a 5th Generation fighter and in actuality we've had stealth in the past, but until the F-22 it wasn't coupled with combat agility. Consider the B-2 and F-117. Both are very stealthy but lack agility, so much so that they could only be deployed at night.
The F-22 and the F-35, which also employ stealth, were designed for agility. We want to fly them day and night and in all combat conditions. They are not designed to be specialized aircraft for narrowly defined mission sets.
F-35, Stealth and Designing a 21st Century Fighter from the Ground Up
View more presentations from Second Line of Defense
Building the airplane from the ground up means that what used to be on the outside of the airframe must be moved inside. This includes sensors, fuel and weapons.
The sensors are integrated through the fusion engine, which is another discriminator that makes the F-35 a 5th Generation aircraft.
True 5th Generation stealth must be built into the aircraft. It can't be added post production. It's just not possible to make a 4th Generation aircraft stealthy because you've got to hang tanks and stores and pods external to the airplane's exterior.
Consequently, agility and radar cross section are compromised. You also lose agility because there's a huge aerodynamic penalty for hanging anything outside the airplane.
So, that's what caused us in the beginning to say the airplane must be agile and it must be stealthy, which requires us to put the fuel, weapons and sensors inside the aircraft.
One of the challenges we had was to make an airplane that had the low speed characteristics of the Hornet and the high speed of an F-16.
The Hornet can fly slow extremely well and get to high angles of attack and point the nose all around. The F-16 can't do that as well, but the F-16 can fly extremely fast and can recover energy quickly. The Hornet does not do that very well. Once they get into an energy deficit, it's hard for them to recover because of the low thrust to weight ratio and the aerodynamic penalty of sensors and weapons in the airstream.
The F-35 incorporates the best of both in flying qualities: it will fly slowly at high angles of attack; it can fly supersonic for extended periods of time; and it regains energy quickly because of its large engine.
The engine is another example of building stealth into the airframe from the ground up. In a legacy aircraft, the power plant creates a significant element of combat visibility. This impact to radar cross section comes from the front and rear of the engine. Ideally, the engine is totally hidden from view as in the B-2 and F-117. This approach impacts agility so a different design is found in the F-35. In front of the F-35's engine is a bifurcated diverterless intake which totally blocks line of sight to the compressor face while not severely impacting performance. At its rear is a reduced signature nozzle.
A final consideration with regard to building from the ground up is how stealth is manufactured into the aircraft. The F-35 is manufactured with stealth built in as well.
As Bill Grant, Lockheed Martin F-35 Supportable Low Observables Integrated Product Team leader, has put it:
From day one, supportable LO has been a key entity on the program and has had a profound influence on the very design of the airplane. In fact, the element that is manufactured into the skin was an initiative brought about by our LO maintenance discipline. We've also had a profound influence on the selection of the materials and then once they were decided upon, we helped refine the properties to make them more workable for field use.
And Grant added:
Our system requirement was for end of life, which means that throughout the 8,000-hour service life of the jet, it is to remain fully mission-capable. So we anticipated that the amount of maintenance that would be done over the life of the airplane and anticipated that in the design.
So when we deliver the jet, it's delivered with a significant margin of degradation that's allowed for all of these types of repairs over the life of the airplane, again, without having to return to the depot for refurbishment.
There may be some cosmetic-based reasons why the jet might go back to a facility to get its appearance improved, but from a performance-standpoint we recognize no need to do that.
An example of the new approach to stealth and the new combat systems can be seen in the Northern Edge 2011 Exercise.
This exercise is a major U.S. joint forces exercise held in Alaska which tests the ability of the various elements of the forces to work together.
With the new emphasis on the Pacific or the Asian Pivot, the exercise highlights the working of U.S. forces in dealing with the Pacific challenge.
In this exercise, fifth generation aircraft each played an important role.
The F-22s demonstrated their air dominance role, and then shifted to an air battle management role.
The F-35 combat mission systems flew in the exercise on a test bed aircraft.
As a Joint Program Office release underscored:
Participating in Northern Edge for the second time, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter sensor capabilities were tested in Alaska's premier multi-operational environment from June 13-24, 2011. Hosted by Alaskan Command, Northern Edge is a biennial U.S. Pacific Command exercise that prepares joint forces to respond to crises throughout the Asia-Pacific region.
This year provided an invaluable opportunity to observe the performance of the F-35 JSF systems in multiple robust electronic warfare scenarios.
The AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) and AN/AAQ-37 distributed aperture system (DAS) were mounted aboard Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft. Making its debut, the AN/AAQ-37 DAS demonstrated spherical situational awareness and target tracking capabilities. The DAS is designed to simultaneously track multiple aircraft in every direction, which has never been seen in an air combat environment.
A return participant, the AN/APG-81 AESA demonstrated robust electronic protection, electronic attack, passive maritime and experimental modes, and data-linked air and surface tracks to improve legacy fighter situational awareness. It also searched the entire 50,000 square- mile Gulf of Alaska operating area for surface vessels, and accurately detected and tracked them in minimal time.
Navy Cmdr. Erik Etz, Deputy Mission Systems Integrated Product Team Lead from the F-35 JSF Program Office, said the rigorous testing of both sensors during NE 2011 served as a significant risk-reduction step for the F-35 JSF program. "By putting these systems in this operationally rigorous environment, we have demonstrated key war fighting capabilities well in advance of scheduled operational testing," Etz added.
Having the exercise in June had its seasonal weather challenges for system operators to adapt and overcome. Inclement and cloudy weather hampered in-flight visibility. The DAS was significant in providing clear and discernable horizons, and views of ground features and nearby aircraft. It also wasn't dark enough for testing night vision functions. A surrogate test visor was used for displaying DAS imagery to the operators.
"The implications of F-35 JSF sensor systems for air-land-sea battle are immense," said Peter Bartos, Northrop Grumman's Test Director.
http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20110627_NORTHERNEDGE.pdf
In short, during this important joint exercise, the presence of 5th Generation fighters in the air package increased the overall forces' mission effectiveness by enhancing survivability and lethality for entire package.
It showed as well that 5th Generation fighters enhanced battlespace awareness enhanced overall mission effectiveness of the entire mission package.
And finally, the exercise showed that 5th Generation fighters with this enhanced SA tend to function as Air Battle manager for entire package. Even when F-22 was weapon bingo it stayed in fight as battle manager!
In other words, the exercise highlighted the cross between current and future capabilities, which are central to the future of airpower.
http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/building-a-21st-century-fighter-from-the-ground-up/
http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-35-creating-a-21st-century-fighter/
F-22 Raptor: More turbulence ahead?
The fifth-generation fighter has spawned a litany problems. Recent congressional watchdog reports indicate that cost and delays will continue to be a factor.
By Hugh Lessig, hlessig@dailypress.com | 757-247-7821
May 6, 2012
It was a rough week for the F-22 Raptor. On Monday, Air Force leaders hosted the media at Langley Air Force Base to tout the ability of its fifth-generation stealth fighter and update the investigation into an oxygen-supply problem in the cockpit.
What became the headline, however, was an admission by Air Combat Commander Gen. Mike Hostage that a small number of Raptor pilots are uncomfortable flying the aircraft over the skies of Hampton and elsewhere.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report that said the price tag for modernizing the aircraft has gone from $5.4 billion to $11.7 billion. The schedule for implementing all improvements has slipped seven years, from 2010 to 2017.The planes cost $143 million, according to the Air Force. Goverment estimates put the price at $412 million once the cost of research, development are upgrades are included.
Hampton (Hampton, Virginia) Later that night, ABC news broadcast a tearful interview with the sister of the late Jeff Haney, an Air Force pilot who was killed when his Raptor crashed in Alaska. Jennifer Haney said the Air Force blamed her brother for the crash and said, "To them, Jeff was a number, it feels like sometimes. But those jets are worth a lot of money."
Tonight, two F-22 pilots based at Langley are set to tell "60 Minutes" that they are reluctant to fly the Raptor because of the oxygen problem. Maj. Jeremy Gordon and Capt. Josh Wilson question whether the aircraft returned to the skies too soon after a four-month stand-down in 2011.
Gordon says the problem of hypoxia is "insidious," sneaking up on a pilot without warning. Air Force leaders say the oxygen-generation system is a concern, but the 11 unexplained cases of hypoxia since September are stacked against 12,000 sorties, and that's an acceptable risk as they continue to investigate. The risk level looks different if you the 11 incidents are compared to about 185 aircraft or about 200 pilots.
But the Raptor has been beset with questions for years. Critics say it costs too much and can't perform as advertised.
A line of defense
To be sure, the Raptor has its defenders. Start with Gen. Hostage, who said he wished the F-22 fleet was much larger. Coincidentally, the last Raptor was delivered to the Air Force last week. In all, Lockheed Martin has delivered 195 F-22s to the Air Force since 1997, eight as test aircraft.
The defenders certainly include many Raptor pilots at Langley, who have raved about the its capabilities in previous interviews with the Daily Press.
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, said the Raptor is essential for national security as the U.S. turns its attention to the Asia-Pacific, especially since China is developing its own stealth fighter. Forbes chairs the Readiness Subcommittee on the House Armed Services panel.
"Do we need a plane of this capacity? Absolutely we do," he said.
Even Gordon and Wilson believe in the Raptor and its mission. Lesley Stahl, the "60 Minutes" correspondent who interviewed the pilots, told the Daily Press that the pilots would stop every few minutes to make that clear to her.
"They don't want to see this plane go out of service," she said.
Yet that is exactly what some critics of the Raptor say should happen.
Pierre Sprey was recruited to the Pentagon in 1966 as one of the "whiz kids" under then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. He was heavily involved in the design of two important Air Force craft: the F-16 fighter and the A-10 ground attack jet.
"This is not a taxpayer waste-of-money issue," Sprey told the Daily Press. "If we shut it down tomorrow, we'll dramatically improve American air power."
Speaking of taxpayers
Last week's GAO report focused on efforts to modernize the Raptor with enhanced radar, air-to-ground attack ability and other improvements. It says the Air Force underestimated the sheer scope of the project, both in terms of schedule and budget.
The program "has not had the management rigor or oversight on par with the $11.7 billion investment it entails," the report concludes. It recommends that the Air Force consider future improvements as separate, formal acquisition programs, complete with a business case and schedule. That would enable better oversight. The Air Force agreed.
This comes on the heels of an April GAO report that compared the F-22 modernization program with similar efforts involving the older F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.
Updating the three older fighters, GAO says, began with the assumption that each be incrementally upgraded over time. But with the F-22, the Air Force did not expect any major shifts in its mission and did not plan for future upgrades. The Raptor's modernization program began in 2003 because of a significant change— that it perform ground-attack sorties in addition to being an air superiority fighter.The change was considered necessary to meet current and future threats, the report says.
Because the Air Force had not anticipated the need for such a change, critical information wasn't available when the modernization began. As a result, cost and schedule estimates "were not knowledge based — and have since changed significantly, with costs doubling and schedule slipping by more than seven years," the report states.
Overrated?
In making his case that the F-22 "is a disaster for American defense," Sprey ticks off several factors.
The first and most important: Pilots become skilled through training, and Raptor pilots don't get enough training hours because of aircraft maintenance problems. He points to the flying time of Capt. Haney, who died in the Alaska crash. The official crash report showed he flew eight to nine hours a month for his final three months. Haney was an instructor pilot and a mission commander.
"Jeff Haney was one of the hottest sticks in the F-22 fleet and he was only getting eight to 10 hours a month," Sprey said. "I was astonished to see that. That was appallingly low."
Sprey said the number of hours should be much higher, but Langley pilots disagree. They also dispute that the aircraft is hampered by maintenance problems.
In a background briefing during last week's media day, pilots and maintainers from the First Fighter Wing said the wing's mission capability rate was 80 percent, which is 6 percent above their goal and compares favorably to F-16s.
As for training, they fly between six and 20 hours a month. Because veteran pilots have experience on fourth-generation fighters, they feel they don't need as many hours on the Raptor. An officer who has spent 18 years in the air said he's never flown 30 or 40 hours a month, although that would be possible in wartime.
Size matters
Sprey said another problem with the Raptor is that the fleet is too small. Combine that with few hours in the air, and he said, "We've never come close to an airplane that shows up so little."
Supporters of the Raptor are upset with the size of the fleet, too.
"Instead of having fewer F-22s, we should have more," said Forbes.
Had the Air Force committed to hundreds of Raptors, it could have incorporated upgrades into F-22s before they rolled off the assembly line, rather than trying to retro-fit improvements into existing planes. The U.S. could have sold extra Raptors to its closest allies, driving down the cost, Forbes said.
The congressman says he takes the concerns of pilots Gordon and Wilson seriously.
"I never discount a single concern of one pilot, one soldier," he said. "If they have a concern, we have a concern. But I also feel the Air Force feels the same way. The only thing we have to constantly do is put it in some perspective."
Different perspectives
Retired Air Force Gen. Richard E. Hawley is the former commander of Air Combat Command, and still lives in the area. He retired in 1999.
When it comes to the oxygen-generating system, the issue could be any number of things, he said. The intense Internet buzz created after the crash in Alaska could be making pilots hypersensitive – kind of like when the flu is going around, everyone thinks they have the flu.
It could be a training issue. A pilot in a high-performing jet that flies at high altitudes must have disciplined breathing – forcing out carbon dioxide to breathe in oxygen.
Or it could be the oxygen-generation system itself, which takes high-pressure air off the engine and processes it. Investigators say the problem is either not enough oxygen or air that is tainted with toxins.
"This is very high-end technology," Hawley said. "Maybe it isn't working quite right."
He noted that earlier aircraft had oxygen bottles, which worked fine for years.
"Maybe we ought to put a bottle back in the plane," he said. He praised the investigating board, but noted that they "keep coming up empty-handed."
Hawley said he can't recall any instance in his 35-year career where a pilot did not want to fly an airplane.
"It's a shocking thing to me to think that fighter pilots would not want to fly the F-22," he said. "Clearly, something's going on."
http://www.dailypress.com/news/military/dp-nws-cp-f22-problems-20120506,0,683049,full.story
BAE Systems near $800 million Saudi Hawk deal: report
LONDON | Sun May 6, 2012 1:30pm BST
(Reuters) - BAE Systems (BAES.L) is close to sealing a 500 million pounds ($808 million) deal to sell up to 30 Hawk trainer aircraft to Saudi Arabia, the Sunday Times reported.
The sale would provide some welcome relief for the defense giant, which is battling against shrinking defense budgets in Europe and America.
Saudi Arabia has ordered 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets from BAE and needs the Hawks to train its pilots.
The order is expected to be finalized within the next few months but it is likely to come too late to save the 845 jobs at BAE's Hawk factory in Brough, Yorkshire, which is set to close.
BAE is Britain's biggest manufacturing company, with 100,000 employees around the globe. It is building two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy and is a key partner on the Joint Strike Fighter, the world's biggest military aircraft program.
BAE declined comment when contacted by Reuters.
($1 = 0.6189 British pounds)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/06/us-bae-saudi-idUKBRE84506Q20120506
Chinese Counterfeiters Nail Another Russian Jet Fighter
May 6, 2012: China has apparently copied the Russian Su-30MK2, and is operating it as the J-16, claiming that the aircraft is of Chinese design. More unauthorized pictures of the J-16 are showing up, via Chinese with cell phone cameras and Internet access. It's pretty clear that the J-16 is a copy of the Su-30MK2.
Russia and China jointly developed the two seat version of the Su-30, as the Su-30MKK in the late 1990s, and, a decade ago, an upgraded version the Su-MK2. China has received about a hundred legal Su-30MK2s, but now nearly identical J-16s are showing up.
This kind of blatant technology theft is nothing new. The Chinese J-11 jet fighter is an illegal Chinese copy of the Russian Su-27. This plagiarism has been a source of friction between Russia and China for nearly a decade. It all began, legally, in 1995, when China paid $2.5 billion for the right to build 200 Su-27s. Russia would supply engines and electronics, with China building the other components according to Russian plans and specifications. But after 95 of the Chinese built aircraft were built, Russia cancelled the agreement. They claimed that China was using the knowledge acquired with this Su-27 program, to build their own copy of the Su-27, the J-11. Russia kept the piracy issue quiet for a as long as it could, and warned the Chinese that simply copying Russian technology would produce an inferior aircraft. Apparently the Chinese did not agree, and are continuing their work on the J-11, using only, what they claim is, Chinese technology.
The J-11 is believed to now include better electronics and some other Chinese design modifications. China can manufacture most of the components of the J-11, the one major element it must import are the engines. China believes it will be free from dependence on Russia for military jet engines within the next 5-10 years. Currently, China imports two Russian engines, the $3.5 million AL-31 (for the Su-27/30, J-11, J-10) and the $2.5 million RD-93 (a version of the MiG-29s RD-33) for the JF-17 (a F-16 type aircraft developed in cooperation with Pakistan.) Despite the ongoing technology theft dispute, Russia still sells jet engines to China for its illegal copies of Russian aircraft. China agreed, in 2008, to stop stealing Russian military tech, but went on to ignore that agreement, and deny that it had reneged on its promise to stop the tech theft.
The Su-30MK2 is a 34 ton fighter-bomber similar to the American F-15E. The Su-30MK2 can carry 8 tons of smart bombs and missiles. It can be refueled in the air and is equipped to operate over land and open water. The Chinese Navy is operating 24 Su-30MK2s and some of the J-16s that have already been built.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20120506.aspx
Gripen Flight Evaluations in Sweden by Swiss air force
Swiss air force pilots have carried out an in-flight evaluation of Saab's Gripen F demonstrator, which will evolve into the New-Generation Gripen NG. (Swiss MoD photo)A team of Air Force and armasuisse specialists undertook, from 2 to 4 May 2012, in Linköping, Sweden, a series of test flights on the Gripen F demonstrator. The four flights, carried out on a two-seat aircraft, were used to verify previous evaluations of the Gripen E/F, and to reduce the risks associated with the development of the aircraft. All these test flights could be completed as intended.
LINKOPING, Sweden --- With the Federal Council's decision of 30 November 2011 concerning the choice of aircraft, a major milestone was reached in the acquisition of new fighter planes for Swiss Air Force.
Following this decision, the [Ministry of Defence, DDPS] has been tasked by the Federal Council with the preparation of the acquisition of the Gripen.
Within the DDPS, this task is assigned to an integrated project team (IPT) led by armasuisse, and comprising representatives of the Air Force and other DDPS departments.
In parallel to ongoing negotiations with the Swedish government concerning the optimization of the procurement process, further technical discussions are taking place intensively between partners in Sweden and Switzerland.
Sweden and Switzerland plan to complete the technical details of their coordinated acquisition of Gripen by the end of second quarter of 2012.
Status of the acquisition process
The IPT is closely monitoring the progress of the project with industry, as is customary in complex acquisitions projects.
Monitoring this progress allows not only the oversight and verification of the Gripen E/F performance, but also the reduction of the risks associated with the further development of the Gripen C/D to the more advanced E/F version.
In this context, the first test flights have now been held with the Gripen F demonstrator belonging to the manufacturer, Saab, in Sweden.
A small team of pilots and flight test engineers from the Swiss Air Force and armasuisse have carried out a series of test flights, in close collaboration with the manufacturer.
Program and test flights
The evaluation program, which took place over three days, included work on the training simulator as well as real "test flights".
During the first day, the two pilots refreshed their knowledge of the Gripen in the simulator, and especially familiarized themselves with the new capabilities of the Gripen F demonstrator.
During the following two days flights were carried out to verify the evaluation of the Gripen E/F and to reduce the risks associated with the planned purchase.
To ensure that the tests were as realistic as possible, they were executed on the basis of various operational scenarios which correspond to what could be required of the aircraft in Switzerland.
They each featured two aircraft with mission profiles for air defense and air police roles. Missions were flown with different weapon configurations and with the support of target aircraft.
All missions were flown from Saab's base at Linköping in Sweden.
The various test flights took place mainly over the Baltic Sea, at an altitude between sea level and 12,000 meters. All test flights have been performed successfully.
Gripen F Demonstrator
The Gripen F demonstrator F, tested by the Swiss pilots in Sweden, is an intermediate model between the Gripen C/D and the Gripen E/F.
This two-seater is a derivative of the Gripen D, and made its first flight May 27, 2008. It has since logged over 200 flight hours. This demonstrator provides a platform for testing subsystems to be installed in the Gripen E/F.
The Gripen F Demonstrator F is powered by a General Electric F414G engine.
It is equipped with a larger internal fuel tank, some cockpit components of the new avionics suite, and two additional weapon stations under the fuselage. In addition, its landing gear was repositioned.
Differences between the Gripen C/D and the Gripen E/F
The main differences between the Gripen E/F that Switzerland has chosen to acquire and the Gripen C/D tested in 2008 are:
- More powerful engine;
- Increased internal fuel capacity;
- New Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar at the forefront of technology;
- Infrared scan and track (IRST) passive sensor;
- New cockpit avionics;
- New electronic warfare system;
- Two additional weapon stations;
- New landing gear.
Next Steps
During the summer of 2012 Saab, the manufacturer, will fit the new AESA radar to the aircraft and carry out tests. Subsequent verification by the Swiss team is planned for the second half of this year.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/135023/swiss-evaluate-gripen-f-demonstrator-in-sweden.html
Change Course To Protect F-35
F-16 Set Example of Concurrent Development
May. 7, 2012 - 10:15AM
By GORDON ENGLAND
Why is the F-16 fighter jet so successful, with 4,500 airplanes delivered and, 30 years later, still in production, while the F-35 is a continuing struggle?
I was heavily involved in both programs, to include industry and government, and here are my observations — and some lessons learned from the F-16 — that could be helpful for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
Both programs started with the same objectives:
å Incorporate new and decisive technologies to keep America well ahead of potential adversaries.
å Keep total program cost low by overlapping development, test and production.
å Reduce support costs compared to the airplanes being replaced.
å Promote international involvement to strengthen coalitions and to share costs.
å Implement rapid production ramp-up with accelerated fielding to get the capability to those depending on it.
Since it involves three different configurations with a high degree of commonality, the F-35 is a more complex undertaking than the F-16, but they are still comparable programs, as the F-16 also incorporated a host of new technologies for its day, like fly-by-wire digital flight control.
Both programs experienced their share of early development problems. At the outset, F-35 designers struggled with too much weight for the short-takeoff version. We forget today that F-16 designers struggled with canopy, engine and cockpit issues. Yet compared with the F-16 timeline, the birthing pains of the F-35 are well in its past. Even so, the F-35 program is still being slowed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), moving forward inefficiently at best.
DoD is overly concerned with the cost of concurrency, even though it has always been the plan for the F-35 to repeat the proven F-16 approach. Unlike serial programs, where development — test — production nicely dovetail one after the other, concurrency is where they overlap. Based on their statements and testimony to the U.S. Congress, today's DoD officials believe that F-35 concurrency adds unbounded and unaffordable retrofit costs to incorporate fixes for problems found in later tests into earlier production airplanes.
They intend to keep F-35 production at very low and costly production rates until at or near full specification performance is demonstrated. For the F-35, final testing is not scheduled for completion until 2017.
By contrast, from the start, the F-16 went to high-rate production; 352 airplanes were on firm order within four years and three years later, more than 500 had been delivered worldwide.
This fast production was based on several important decision criteria. First, there was confidence that the early configuration of the F-16 would be superior to the F-4 Phantom it was replacing, even though the performance specification had not been fully demonstrated through testing. Contractor and government tests were in parallel, and results were shared to gain quick confidence in the basic airplane.
Second, low cost could only be achieved through high-rate production.
Third, service leaders knew that the airplanes would be continuously upgraded, so there was never a final configuration for production.
Lastly, there was never a plan to retrofit older airplanes as newer capabilities were added. Rather, each airplane configuration was fielded for a mission suited to its performance. And when retrofit was initiated, it was accomplished as part of a scheduled block change to keep the cost low.
To date, there are 138 versions of the F-16, as well as 15 block changes, with each block a decisive improvement in capability.
The contrast with the F-35 is striking. In the past two years, DoD planners have cut 426 F-35s out of the five-year defense plan. Assuming those numbers remain firm, it will now take the F-35 program about 17 years to deliver what the F-16 achieved in seven. No wonder the F-35 unit cost is not coming down as fast as originally planned.
Based on the success of the similar F-16 program, it's clear to me that avoiding concurrency is not a good decision. It sacrifices the substantial savings available from efficient, higher production rates to save relatively smaller estimated retrofit costs. It guarantees higher production costs to avoid the expense of retrofits that may, in fact, never be incorporated. It just doesn't add up.
The result is that the overall savings originally expected of the F-35 program in terms of higher production rates and faster fielding are not being realized.
The decision to keep production at very low rates carries other cost penalties. The OSD decision to delay full-rate F-35 production occurred after suppliers had already spent billions of dollars defining and automating their manufacturing processes to meet expected early, large-volume production. These costs are now amortized over far lower upfront quantities.
And with F-35 fielding now stretched further into the future, the services will feel more compelled to extend the life of the older legacy airplanes. That is a double cost negative.
In addition to the cost of upgrading older airplanes, the services also will need to spend more for their maintenance. The F-35 will save substantial sums in lifetime support costs compared with the multiple legacy airplanes it will replace, but these savings are only realized when the F-35 is deployed, so time is money.
Savings Needed Now
This is a critical time for the F-35. The Navy has too many carriers it can't afford and the Air Force has too large a bill for refueling tankers and the development of a new bomber. This is the right time to gain unit cost savings from higher F-35 production rates. It is the wrong time for DoD to be making profound program decisions based on a flawed understanding of concurrency.
My recommendation is to take F-35 decision-making out of the hands of well-intentioned but misguided financial analysts. With a new incoming service acquisition executive for F-35, there is opportunity for dramatic improvements. The executive will need full authority. But even that will not be enough. It is now time to put more of the procurement, test and fielding decisions back into the services, more in line with how the F-16 was managed by the U.S. Air Force Systems Command. The JSF Program Office should concentrate on nurturing and expanding international sales.
In that regard, it is also time to give international partners more say in the program. International sales account for about 40 percent of planned deliveries over the next decade. These international customers have the same budget difficulties as DoD, and many have invested heavily in the program, yet they have no advance say in DoD planning.
The F-35 program needs these added sales quantities to keep unit costs affordable for all users. To maintain and expand these sales, DoD should be more proactive in dealing with existing and potential international customers.
DoD also needs to work with Congress to bring the test community back under DoD control. An eight-year test program seems excessive in terms of achieving the proper balance among test time, cost and fielding benefits.
The F-35 contractor designers and government engineers who evaluated the early proposals promised more than they could deliver on the timeline of the contract. Too much was promised too soon. Eleven years later, with much of the development and test now complete, it is a different story. Production capability has been proved by actual deliveries. In terms of development maturity, the F-35 is at least at par with the F-16 at its four-year point.
When comparing concurrent production, however, the F-35 is being artificially confined to low production rates at a point when the F-16 was already roaring ahead.
Without substantial numbers of F-35s, the U.S. Air Force could shrink to a marginal fighter force and risk losing future air supremacy. The U.S. Navy will lose "first-day capability" and will be forced to put its expensive carriers in harm's way. The U.S. Marine Corps will be unable to confidently support its forward-deployed forces from amphibious ships.
With DoD budgets already shrinking, DoD quickly needs to change its F-35 management philosophy.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120507/DEFFEAT05/305070006/Change-Course-Protect-F-35?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2012 | 07:53 uur
Change Course To Protect F-35
F-16 Set Example of Concurrent Development
May. 7, 2012 - 10:15AM
By GORDON ENGLAND
Helder artikel, duidelijk..... het roer moet om in het JSF-programma, om er nog iets van te maken.....
Doordat het testen, ontwikkeling zo lang duurt en de productie expres laag worden gehouden en tevens de nodige problemen en kostenoverschrijdingen ..... heeft het JSF-programma een negatief beeld gekregen ..... dit is ook negatief voor je verkoop.
Maar of het beeld/de capaciteiten van de JSF beter kunnen worden, door versnelling ?? ..... daar is het (denk ik) te laat voor !
Despite failures, F-35 remains the jet of the future
May 8, 2012 6:36 AM
Sure, there are other aircraft that meet today's needs, but what about tomorrow?
One of the untold stories of the F-35 saga has been how opponents of the aircraft have come to urge Canada to switch from Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation Lightning II to Boeing's fourth generation F-18E/F Super Hornet.
In the opinion of one bureaucrat at public works, the stealth campaign against the Joint Strike Fighter "has been brilliantly conceived and orchestrated" by Boeing, whose Super Hornet is based on technologies developed in the 1970s.
There have been many suggestions that Canada should buy Boeing's Super Hornets because the Royal Australian Air Force has bought a few. The U.S. Navy has also recently placed a small order for some additional Super Hornets, but those are being bought to specifically fill a gap caused by delays in the development of the F-35. They are not meant to replace it.
To open the door for the Super Hornet, Canadian critics of the F-35 have clamoured for a competition. But the F-35 beat Boeing's X-32 in a fly-off competition to become the main future U.S. multi-purpose warplane. The Super Hornet was never considered by the U.S. or the eight countries in the Joint Strike Fighter consortium as their main manned warplane for the next half-century because it was based on old technologies. It also lost out to the F-35 in a Japanese competition.
I saw Super Hornets take off and land many times eight years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Persian Gulf. It is a magnificent aircraft that meets the challenges of today. But what about tomorrow? Crucially, what the Super lacks and what the F-35 has are stealth characteristics that will be central to future air warfare. Without that you will basically be irrelevant.
Boeing's lobbying for the Super Hornet is understandable. It is a business. Having lost out twice already to Lockheed Martin and with no fifth-generation aircraft of its own to sell, Boeing urgently needs new Super Hornet orders to keep that fighter assembly line open. However, this does not explain why opponents of the F-35 have not acknowledged where they are getting some of the information they are using to attack it.
The Harper government has failed to explain why the F-35 is the best option, beyond generalities about buying the best equipment possible so that Canada can play a more active role in global security. This is a fundamentally different view than that of the NDP and Liberals. Rather than discuss what the country requires, they prefer to debate process and long-term program estimates (guesses?) for an aircraft that Canada has not yet purchased.
If you buy the wrong fighter, you may lose a war. You also end up being a third-tier player unable to undertake tough assignments and, by definition, largely ignored when big international decisions have to be made. This is an outcome some members of the opposition probably want, though they have been publicly hesitant to say so.
The Canadian debate requires a little perspective. The British decided to purchase the jump version of the F-35, switched to the cheaper conventional takeoff variant that Canada is buying and then switched back to the jump-jet model again when it was realized that the Royal Navy needs an aircraft to land on a pair of hugely expensive aircraft carriers it is building. Yet these follies, which involve billions of pounds in additional expense, have not attracted nearly the same scrutiny or opprobrium as Canada's potential purchase of the F-35.
You'd never know by listening to Liberal leader Bob Rae that it was the Chrétien government that started down the rocky F-35 road. Nor is there anything to indicate that those Liberals intended to have an open competition for Canada's next warplane.
A mischievous op-ed piece by a former Liberal aide recently tried to suggest that the F-35 was still a "paper airplane," falsely or mistakenly comparing it to a European transport aircraft that Canada rejected a few years ago because it really was a "paper airplane." The F-35 prototype began flight tests 12 years ago. Several dozen are flying now. Training squadrons have been stood up. Certification courses for ground crew have begun. A Dutch F-35 has rolled off the assembly line.
Although the government has been silent about it, a Royal Canadian Air Force pilot has already flown an F-35 simulator.
Postmedia News
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Despite+failures+remains+future/6584345/story.html#ixzz1uH5oT22N
Super Tucano Supporters In Shock: AF To Pick Tucano Or AT-6 Without Flying Either
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
The Air Force will choose a winner in its troubled Light Air Support competition without actually flying the two contending planes, the Embraer Super Tucano and the Hawker-Beechcraft AT-6, and it will even disregard what it has data from the limited "flight demonstration" it conducted last year.
That's a disturbing departure from best practice in a program that has already been an agony for the Air Force, with the delivery of ground-attack planes to the fledgling Afghan air force now delayed by 15 months, enough to miss not one but two "fighting seasons" in Afghanistan. A chagrined Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has publicly pledged "we'll work our asses off" to get it right. But according to AOL Defense interviews with both corporate camps, the revised Request For Proposal released at 5:16 on Friday -- the traditional time to bury awkward news -- skips the important step of having the Air Force actually see how both planes fly before it makes its decision, tentatively due in January.
Evaluating the planes purely on paper rather than hands-on is problematic with each competing aircraft, for different reasons. The Super Tucano is simply unfamiliar to the Air Force, although it has an extensive track record in Latin American militaries, and a series of Navy Special Operations experiments variously called "Imminent Fury" and "Combat Dragon" gave good reports. The Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 (pictured) is derived from the familiar T-6 used to train both Air Force and Navy pilots, but the basic trainer is significantly different from the combat version, of which only two working models exist.
While they're still wading through the details, both companies expressed confusion and disappointment over the revised RFP. The Super Tucano camp is clearly more distressed, with one partisan arguing the lack of a fly-off is a gimme to the AT-6 in a furious blog entry on Second Line of Defense, a website run by AOL Board of Contributors member Robbin Laird. On the AT-6 side, the reaction was milder.
"We're a little bit disappointed in the fact that the Air Force has not raised some of the standards," particularly for ejection seat safety, said Derek Hess, the retired Air Force colonel who's vice-president of Light Attack Programs at AT-6 manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft (which recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy). The AT-6's ejection seat accommodates a wider range of heights and weights than the Super Tucano's, but the Air Force has said they both meet the requirements set by the Afghans. As for the bigger issue of fly-before-buy, Hess told AOL Defense, "we would welcome the opportunity for a fly-off... We would love the opportunity to go show it off and frankly are not sure why they're not doing that."
By contrast, the vice-president of Sierra Nevada Corporation, Embraer's US partner offering the Brazilian-designed aircraft, audibly struggled to keep his frustration in check during a phone call with AOL Defense. "The lack of a fly off, a flight evaluation, is concerning," said SNC vice president Taco Gilbert, a retired Air Force general. Compounding the problem, "they've further delayed first article testing until delivery," he said. "The first time the Air Force [will be] seeing the equipment perform is well into production." That same buy-before-fly approach proved so problematic on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Gilbert pointed out, that no less a figure than Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall called it "acquisition malpractice."
Congress is taking note. "Probably the most consistent thing we've heard from the Hill is, 'What in the world is wrong with the Air Force?'" said one source painfully familiar with the program. "If they can't do something this simple, how can we trust them on F-35?"
http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/07/super-tucano-supporters-in-shock-af-to-pick-tucano-or-at-6-with
Air Force to cut Selfridge's A10s, about 700 Michigan jobs
1:18 PM, May 8, 2012 |
A row of A10 fighter jets sit under a canopy at the Selfridge Air National Guard Base on Tuesday, March 27, 2012. / DFP FILE PHOTO
By Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki
Technical Sgt. John Hughes of Hazel Park was doing the annual maintenance on an A10 Warthog, one of the fighter jets with 107th Fighter Squadron, 127th Wing of the Air National Guard out of Selfridge Air National Guard Base. The plane's wiring and systems were mostly exposed and the body was up on man-high jacks, making it clear this job is more than giving your car an oil change.
Hughes, however, said he doesn't know how much longer he'll be doing the job. The Air Force has decided to get rid of Selfridge's A10s, a move that will cost Michigan almost 700 jobs, about one-third of the Harrison Township base's personnel. Hughes conceded it's tough working every day with the fate of your job in jeopardy.
"There's some anxiety with it. No one knows where we're going to be a year from now," Hughes said. "Right now, it's in Congress so we'll have to see what happens."
The Air Force, under orders to cut about 10% of its budget for 2014, did much of their cutting in the guard and reserve components. Some said too much of the cutting came out of the guard and reserve.
For Michigan, the Air Force's plan calls for cutting 24 A10s from Selfridge and adding four KC135 air refueling tankers to the base's existing fleet of KC135s. But that would replace just 70 of the jobs lost. And the Air Force was is also proposing moving the 110th Airlift Wing from Battle Creek, taking with it another 110 Michigan jobs.
There's been plenty of negotiating going on over mitigating the job cuts. The Council of Governors suggested moving a squadron of F16s to Selfridge, which would bring about the same number of jobs lost with the A10s — a move the Air Force has rejected. The Air Force countered with moving 24 C130s to Selfridge, which the governor's rejected. That plan included aging aircraft and only about 70 jobs.
There is talk of possibly moving F16s from a base overseas, possibly Europe, as the Mideast war winds down and forces are contracted toward the U.S. The original F16 plan had the planes coming from a U.S. base.
Selfridge had F16s before the last round of BRAC cuts, which sent Selfridge's F16s to Toledo. Should F16s return, most of the A10 personnel are expected to be able to transition to the F16s. After all, most of them were on F16s and transitioned to A10s in those last cuts.
But there's no word on that plan and meanwhile the budget is in wending its way through Congress.
Today was a media day at Selfridge, and along with the tour of the base facilities, the 127th again pitched their case to the public.
"Everybody's really nervous," said base commander Col. Michael Thomas.
Losing the jobs would also lose combat readiness for the Air Force, Thomas said, since Guard and Reservists would return to the private sector and their skills as pilots and mechanics would be lost. He also pointed out the Guard and reserve provide about 30% of the active duty forces at about 6% of the cost, since most are part time. Selfridge's A10s just returned from Afghanistan in January.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120508/NEWS06/120508049/Air-Force-to-cut-Selfridge-s-A10s-700-Michigan-jobs
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2012 | 20:16 uur
For Michigan, the Air Force's plan calls for cutting 24 A10s from Selfridge
Aangezien de BV Nederland aanzienlijk minder F35 zal aanschaffen (?) zou ik een aanvulling op de Klu CAS capaciteit met 24 overtollige A10 (omgebouwd naar C variant) toejuichen.
Ik vermoed de de A variant voor een "appel en een ei" ovegnomen kan worden, de modernisering naar C kost dan wel wat geld, maar dan hebben we ook iets.
Fixes for F-35 Helmet in the Works
The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program touted a fix for the jet's troubled, high-tech helmet, which officials hope will solve jitter picture and lag time issues.
A "micro-inertial measurement unit" is expected to fix the jitter, while "signal processing changes in the software and the architecture" could fix the lag, Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program manager said after testifying at a May 8 U.S. Senate hearing.
"What I am focused on is seeing he demonstration of those fixes working and being effective," Venlet said. "That will be paced out through the remainder of this year and into 2013."
Program officials also plan to improve a camera installed on the helmet which they believe will fix "the acuity and night vision," he said.
The fixes will be eventually demonstrated through a flight test or in a laboratory environment, Venlet said. The program has funding to work on the fixes to the primary helmet, made by Vision Systems International, as well as a back-up helmet system.
In 2011, Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, selected an alternated helmet made by BAE Systems.
"I'm not going to let go of that alternate until I've got demonstrated performance of the one I really want," Venlet said.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120508/DEFREG02/305080005/Fixes-F-35-Helmet-Works?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2012 | 20:20 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2012 | 20:16 uur
For Michigan, the Air Force's plan calls for cutting 24 A10s from Selfridge
Aangezien de BV Nederland aanzienlijk minder F35 zal aanschaffen (?) zou ik een aanvulling op de Klu CAS capaciteit met 24 overtollige A10 (omgebouwd naar C variant) toejuichen.
Ik vermoed de de A variant voor een "appel en een ei" ovegnomen kan worden, de modernisering naar C kost dan wel wat geld, maar dan hebben we ook iets.
Nederland kan twee verschillende type toestellen simpelweg niet meer hebben....relatief te kostbaar. Zeker als we ook nog bewapende UAVs gaan aanschaffen. Laat men dat geld liever investeren in meer helikopters.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2012 | 20:20 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 08/05/2012 | 20:16 uur
For Michigan, the Air Force's plan calls for cutting 24 A10s from Selfridge
Aangezien de BV Nederland aanzienlijk minder F35 zal aanschaffen (?) zou ik een aanvulling op de Klu CAS capaciteit met 24 overtollige A10 (omgebouwd naar C variant) toejuichen.
Ik vermoed de de A variant voor een "appel en een ei" ovegnomen kan worden, de modernisering naar C kost dan wel wat geld, maar dan hebben we ook iets.
mee eens !
PM 'approves' jump jets for new carriers
9 May 2012 | UK
It is reported that the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers will get jump jets, with a formal announcement expected tomorrow (Thursday) from the Defence Secretary.
New spending projections revealed the conventional Joint Strike Fighter, or cat and trap version, would add up to two billion pounds to the cost of constructing the carriers, with the cost in time and money of adapting them leaving Britain without carrier capability for a decade.
Today's Daily Telegraph reports that Prime Minister David Cameron has approved abandoning the F35 C-variant in favour of the F35-B jump jet version.
Recent months have seen endless speculation about the decision, as well as last week's scathing criticism of the Ministry of Defence from MPs on the Public Accounts Committee. It accused the MOD of failing to properly calculate the true costs of decisions made in the Strategic Defence and Security Review in October 2010.
The jump jet carries fewer weapons than its cat and trap counterpart and a smaller range, but it does have strategic advantages, as well as giving Britain working aircraft carriers by 2018 instead of a decade delay.
http://bfbs.com/news/uk/pm-approves-jump-jets-new-carriers-57123.html
Ik mag toch hopen dat dit een onjuiste "voorspelling" is. Want de keuze terug naar de F-35B zou ik een erg onverstandige keuze vinden van de Britse regering...met vele nadelige gevolgen voor de toekomst. Weer die Britse einzelgang lijkt het.....en nu niet met twee kleine carriers...formaat Invincible...maar met twee grote volwaardige vliegdekschepen. Die de kern mede moeten vormen van een toekomstige Europese krijgsmacht. Deze vliegdekschepen verdienen volwaardige gevechtsvliegtuigen die ook vanaf de Franse carriers kunnen opereren. Dan hadden de Britten beter gewoon de Invincible-klasse kunnen kopiëren (of twee Spaanse Juan Carlos LHDs kunnen aanschaffen). Dat had pas geld gescheeld. Nu moeten ze doorpakken en het verlies nemen wat mij betreft. Of de F-35C vervangen door Rafale's M. Ook dat scheelt geld.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 09/05/2012 | 12:43 uur
Ik mag toch hopen dat dit een onjuiste "voorspelling" is. Want de keuze terug naar de F-35B zou ik een erg onverstandige keuze vinden van de Britse regering...met vele nadelige gevolgen voor de toekomst. Weer die Britse einzelgang lijkt het.....en nu niet met twee kleine carriers...formaat Invincible...maar met twee grote volwaardige vliegdekschepen. Die de kern mede moeten vormen van een toekomstige Europese krijgsmacht. Deze vliegdekschepen verdienen volwaardige gevechtsvliegtuigen die ook vanaf de Franse carriers kunnen opereren. Dan hadden de Britten beter gewoon de Invincible-klasse kunnen kopiëren (of twee Spaanse Juan Carlos LHDs kunnen aanschaffen). Dat had pas geld gescheeld. Nu moeten ze doorpakken en het verlies nemen wat mij betreft. Of de F-35C vervangen door Rafale's M. Ook dat scheelt geld.
We zullen het morgen misschien weten. (vergeet overigens in jouw EuroEnthousiasme de F18E niet)
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 09/05/2012 | 12:48 uurWe zullen het morgen misschien weten. (vergeet overigens in jouw EuroEnthousiasme de F18E niet)
De Rafale deelt meer technologie en achtergrond met de Eurofighter dan de F-18E. En die keuze zou samenwerking met de Fransen eenvoudiger maken...in training, onderhoud en onderdelen....wat ook weer geld kan uitsparen. Al lees ik elders dat de verkiezing van de socialistische Hollande tot Franse president mogelijk wat meer spanningen oplevert met de conservatieve Britse premier Cameron. Al moeten beide landen flink bezuinigen...dus meer samenwerking op defensiegebied lijkt me juist een pre....zeker als de Fransen mogelijk afzien van een tweede carrier...wat ik me overigens niet zo goed kan voorstellen gezien hun ambities en nationale egard....al kan een flinke vloot Mistral LHDs natuurlijk het nodige compenseren.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 09/05/2012 | 12:55 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 09/05/2012 | 12:48 uurWe zullen het morgen misschien weten. (vergeet overigens in jouw EuroEnthousiasme de F18E niet)
De Rafale deelt meer technologie en achtergrond met de Eurofighter dan de F-18E. En die keuze zou samenwerking met de Fransen eenvoudiger maken...in training, onderhoud en onderdelen....wat ook weer geld kan uitsparen. Al lees ik elders dat de verkiezing van de socialistische Hollande tot Franse president mogelijk wat meer spanningen oplevert met de conservatieve Britse premier Cameron. Al moeten beide landen flink bezuinigen...dus meer samenwerking op defensiegebied lijkt me juist een pre....zeker als de Fransen mogelijk afzien van een tweede carrier...wat ik me overigens niet zo goed kan voorstellen gezien hun ambities en nationale egard....al kan een flinke vloot Mistral LHDs natuurlijk het nodige compenseren.
Ik ben het in deze met jou eens, De Britse (vermoedelijke) keuze om te switchen naar de B variant van de F35 vind ik niet zo handig (mild uitgedrukt) . De kosten om één of beide nieuwe carriers te voorzien van een hoekdek en bijbehorende installatie had ik voor lief genomen.
Als er dan toch een switch gemaakt zou worden van de F35C naar een alternatief maritiem gevechtsvliegtuig dan zou mijn keuze, zonder twijfel, de Rafale M zijn.
De Britten zouden in het nu, bijna theoretische, geval vemoedelijk liever gaan voor de Amerikaan, hoe spijtig ook!
Citaat van: Elzenga op 09/05/2012 | 12:43 uur
Ik mag toch hopen dat dit een onjuiste "voorspelling" is. Want de keuze terug naar de F-35B zou ik een erg onverstandige keuze vinden van de Britse regering...met vele nadelige gevolgen voor de toekomst. Weer die Britse einzelgang lijkt het.....en nu niet met twee kleine carriers...formaat Invincible...maar met twee grote volwaardige vliegdekschepen. Die de kern mede moeten vormen van een toekomstige Europese krijgsmacht. Deze vliegdekschepen verdienen volwaardige gevechtsvliegtuigen die ook vanaf de Franse carriers kunnen opereren. Dan hadden de Britten beter gewoon de Invincible-klasse kunnen kopiëren (of twee Spaanse Juan Carlos LHDs kunnen aanschaffen). Dat had pas geld gescheeld. Nu moeten ze doorpakken en het verlies nemen wat mij betreft. Of de F-35C vervangen door Rafale's M. Ook dat scheelt geld.
Ik snap je bedoeling, ligt daar niet het probleem van EU-defensie ?
Te weinig tot geen coördinatie op het gebied van aankoop van materieel etc.
Waarom niet een top houden en zaken afstemmen, budget vrijmaken voor zaken als lucht- / land- / water verdediging.
Citaat van: Tanker op 09/05/2012 | 13:23 uur
Ik snap je bedoeling, ligt daar niet het probleem van EU-defensie ?
Te weinig tot geen coördinatie op het gebied van aankoop van materieel etc.
Waarom niet een top houden en zaken afstemmen, budget vrijmaken voor zaken als lucht- / land- / water verdediging.
Daar worden initiatieven toe genomen, maar die zullen de komende jaren echt een heel stuk serieuzer en frequenter moeten worden. Bij gebrek aan bewustwording of zijn en visie op dit vlak bij verschillende politieke partijen hoop ik dat de huidige noodzaak tot bezuinigingen de benodigde samenwerking en dus ook standaardisatie zal aanzwengelen. Wat dan hopelijk er ook toe leidt dat er voldoende defensie-materiaal en krijgsmacht overblijft in de verschillende EU-lidstaten. Want er valt juist op die samenwerking en standaardisatie nog veel te halen zonder dat je direct in je middelen gaat snijden.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 09/05/2012 | 12:55 uur....zeker als de Fransen mogelijk afzien van een tweede carrier...wat ik me overigens niet zo goed kan voorstellen gezien hun ambities en nationale egard....al kan een flinke vloot Mistral LHDs natuurlijk het nodige compenseren.
Er komt geen PA2 - Porte-Avions Deux. Te duur. Geen geld.
En een flinke vloot mistrals zal er ook niet komen.
Een vierde zie ik in de loop van tijd nog besteld worden, maar da's een vermoeden, nergens bevestigd.
De Dixmude werd zelfs besteld als economische stimulans voor de scheepsbouwindustrie.
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 09/05/2012 | 13:50 uur
Er komt geen PA2 - Porte-Avions Deux. Te duur. Geen geld.
En een flinke vloot mistrals zal er ook niet komen.
Een vierde zie ik in de loop van tijd nog besteld worden, maar da's een vermoeden, nergens bevestigd.
De Dixmude werd zelfs besteld als economische stimulans voor de scheepsbouwindustrie.
Mag ik vragen welke bron jij hierbij hebt? Dat de PA2 er niet gaat komen?
Citaat van: Hyperion op 09/05/2012 | 13:54 uur
Mag ik vragen welke bron jij hierbij hebt? Dat de PA2 er niet gaat komen?
Ja hoor:
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=118711
Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 09/05/2012 | 17:49 uur
Citaat van: Hyperion op 09/05/2012 | 13:54 uur
Mag ik vragen welke bron jij hierbij hebt? Dat de PA2 er niet gaat komen?
Ja hoor:
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=118711
Officiellement, aucune décision n'est encore prise
Kortom... Er kan nog van alles gebeuren! Al is er wel een grote kans dat hij er niet komt, dat moet ik toegeven ;)
Citaat van: Hyperion op 09/05/2012 | 17:59 uur
Officiellement, aucune décision n'est encore prise
Kortom... Er kan nog van alles gebeuren! Al is er wel een grote kans dat hij er niet komt, dat moet ik toegeven ;)
Los daarvan, afhankelijk van hoe eea zich ontwikkeld, maar de CV CDG moet ook een keer vervangen worden, en als ze nog lang gaan twijfelen over de PA2, kan die bijna door als opvolger. Ik weet niet hoelang de CDG in dienst moet blijven, maar het schip is in 1994 tewater gelaten, en wordt dus in 2024 al 30 jaar. De bouw van een carrier, van beslissing tot operationeel, kan makkelijk 10 jaar duren....
Citaat van: dudge op 09/05/2012 | 18:05 uur
Los daarvan, afhankelijk van hoe eea zich ontwikkeld, maar de CV CDG moet ook een keer vervangen worden, en als ze nog lang gaan twijfelen over de PA2, kan die bijna door als opvolger. Ik weet niet hoelang de CDG in dienst moet blijven, maar het schip is in 1994 tewater gelaten, en wordt dus in 2024 al 30 jaar. De bouw van een carrier, van beslissing tot operationeel, kan makkelijk 10 jaar duren....
Ik lees in dit bestandje dat men in 2020 moet beginnen met de bouw van de opvolger van de CDG.
Citaat van: dudge op 09/05/2012 | 18:05 uur
Los daarvan, afhankelijk van hoe eea zich ontwikkeld, maar de CV CDG moet ook een keer vervangen worden, en als ze nog lang gaan twijfelen over de PA2, kan die bijna door als opvolger. Ik weet niet hoelang de CDG in dienst moet blijven, maar het schip is in 1994 tewater gelaten, en wordt dus in 2024 al 30 jaar. De bouw van een carrier, van beslissing tot operationeel, kan makkelijk 10 jaar duren....
Hou rekening met een levensduur van 40 tot 50 jaar (eerder 50 dan 40)
UV Stealth Technology for Navy Jet Aircraft
Published on May 9, 2012 at 11:09 AM
US Navy combat aircraft could one day be able to swallow the UV rays that highlight their presence on radar screens, if the Pentagon's plans to get such technology developed come to fruition.
The Pentagon's called on defence manufacturers to come up with a system that can deal with ultra violet energy in broadly the same way that present-day stealth aircraft scatter radar waves. In its own words, it's after a 'UV obscurant device' capable of being 'dispersed from an aircraft' that can work alongside the suite of countermeasures already in use, such as infrared flare releasers.
US Navy combat aircraft.
UV Ray Countermeasures
The US Navy's key combat aircraft is current the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and, in future years, it's set to become equipped with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II JSF (Joint Strike Fighter). Both could potentially benefit from having a UV ray countermeasures system like this in place.
The F-35 JSF already boasts advanced stealth measures meant to disperse and absorb radar waves but no official mention's been made of anything fitted to it that can deal with ultra violet rays, of the kind chased by heat-seeking missiles.
According to data published by Defence Today, stealth technology's now been developed to a level where aircraft radar profiles have become small enough that radar-guided missiles can't really detect them at all. The same, though, isn't yet true of the heat trails produced by their engines and one possible approach to dealing with this could involve a particle cloud that, when released, sucks in the UV rays, effectively confusing incoming missiles.
Jet Aircraft UV Rays
The system's described in the jet aircraft UV ray cloaking research proposals request as a 'device that very rapidly generates an extended, dense cloud of material that absorbs in the UV region', adding that 'metamaterials' and 'quantum dots' could play a part.
No specific development timeframe for this UV stealth technology has been issued, nor any particular cost ceiling, but Armed Forces International will revisit this programme at a further point in its development.
http://www.azosensors.com/news.aspx?newsID=4173
U.K. Prepares To Reverse Course Back to STOVL F-35
May. 9, 2012 - 01:02PM
By ANDREW CHUTER
LONDON — The British government is set to announce it has changed its mind for the second time in two years on the type of Joint Strike Fighter it wants to operate from the deck of its new aircraft carriers.
The Daily Telegraph reported today that the Conservative-led coalition government decided at a National Security Council meeting yesterday to reverse the U-turn it ordered in 2010 and switch back to the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the JSF to equip at least one of the two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.
An announcement is expected in Parliament by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond on May 10.
The decision, which has not yet been confirmed by the MoD, will cause huge embarrassment to the government after Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament in 2010, as part of a strategic defense and security review, that Britain would opt for the F-35C conventional carrier version of the jet built by Lockheed Martin.
Cameron told Parliament that the previous Labour government had made the wrong decision opting for STOVL and that the F-35C was more capable, less expensive, had a longer range and was able to carry more weapons.
The Ministry of Defence, though, forgot to adequately consider the cost of converting one of the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers to be able to launch conventional takeoff aircraft using catapults and arrestor gear.
Hammond, who was not the defense secretary at the time of the defense review, told the Telegraph earlier this week the facts had changed on the choice of aircraft.
Expected conversion costs are said to have risen dramatically to approximately 1.8 billion pounds ($2.9 billion), with the British looking to fit the new electromagnetic launch system being developed for the U.S. Navy to one of the warships.
The cash-strapped British decided that only one of the two carriers being built by a BAE-led industrial alliance would be converted to cats and traps with the other warship either being mothballed or sold off, leaving the British without a carrier presence at sea for long periods.
The converted carrier would have started flying operations around 2020.
The switch back to the ramp-launched STOVL could mean the British are able to mount a continuous carrier operation if the second of the Queen Elizabeth-class vessels is mothballed but available for extended readiness.
The F-35 force will be jointly used by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. The British had originally intended to buy 150 aircraft, but that figure has been whittled down. It is no longer clear how many and over what period the aircraft, in which industry here has a substantial stake, will be acquired.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120509/DEFREG01/305090005/U-K-Prepares-Reverse-Course-Back-STOVL-F-35?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE
F-35 Augmented Reality Helmet May Finally Reach Pilots, Thanks to Fixes
Shane McGlaun (Blog) - May 9, 2012 9:20 AM
F-35 helmet Venlet wants
BAE HelmetFancy helmet suffered from video lag and jitter that rendered it essentially useless
The problems that plagued the F-35 since the program started aren't limited to issues directly with the aircraft alone. There have also been issues with the high-tech helmet that the F-35 was originally intended to use. The idea for the F-35's high-tech and futuristic looking helmet was to be able to display all the data the pilot needed on the helmet's visor so the pilot could remain focused on the environment.
That high-tech helmet never made it into testing alongside the F-35 aircraft due to issues that made the helmet unusable. The helmet was originally intended to feature a virtual heads up display, video display to show camera feeds from around the aircraft, and an opto-magnetic tracker. The helmet was also originally designed to send the pilot feeds from night vision cameras mounted around the aircraft to keep the pilot from having to wear night vision goggles.
The video feeds that the camera displays for the pilot were crippled with lag and video jitter issues. Vice Admiral David Venlet is now saying a fix for the helmet issues is in the works right now. Venlet said that a "micro-inertial measurement unit" is expected to be the fix for the video jitter issue while "signal processing changes in software and architecture" could fix the video lag issues.
Venlet said, "What I am focused on is seeing he demonstration of those fixes working and being effective. That will be paced out through the remainder of this year and into 2013."
Pilots of the F-35 were supposed to receive a new high-tech helmet, complete with video feeds and a heads up display a la Iron Man. Issues nearly scrapped the design, but fixes are now planned to try to revive it. [Image Source: Marvel Studios]
Another helmet fix for issues the helmet has had with acuity and night vision includes improvements to one of the cameras installed on the helmet. The camera improvement expected to fix those two issues. Once the fixes are applied, they will be demonstrated through flight tests or in a laboratory setting according to Venlet.
Until the issues can be worked out with the intended F-35 helmet, an alternate helmet was selected that is constructed by BAE Systems. "I'm not going to let go of that alternate until I've got demonstrated performance of the one I really want," Venlet said.
Source: DefenseNews
http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Augmented+Reality+Helmet+May+Finally+Reach+Pilots+Thanks+to+Fixes/article24644.htm
F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On -- Part 1: 'Fifth-Generation' and Other Myths (DEEL I)
(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published May 9, 2012)
By Giovanni de Briganti
PARIS --- The controversy that has again flared up in Canada about the planned purchase of F-35 fighters is a perfect illustration of the stubbornness with which some governments are pursuing plans to buy this controversial aircraft despite all of the documented technical faults, schedule slippages and cost-overruns that have been revealed in excruciating detail in recent years.
This is a particularly appropriate time to review the program's progress as 2012 marks the tenth anniversary of seven foreign countries' signing on to the program. The eighth foreign partner, the United Kingdom, had joined the year before.
During this past decade, a long and still growing list of government agencies (Congressional Research Service; Government Accountability Office; Congressional Budget Office; various parts of the US Department of Defense; Australian National Audit Office; Canadian Auditor-General; Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer; Dutch Court of Audit; UK National Audit Office; various committees of the US Congress and other national parliaments, to name but a few) have repeatedly warned of the cost blow-outs, serious design faults and significant schedule slippages that have plagued the program.
So why do the partner governments continue to support the F-35, and insist they will buy the aircraft, despite the fact that its problems have multiplied its costs by a factor of two or three, while its in-service date has been pushed back by almost a decade?
Generally, the same three reasons are quoted by governments:
1. Only the F-35 has "fifth-generation capabilities," including stealth and data fusion, that will ensure air supremacy in the future;
2. Only the F-35 allows full interoperability with US forces and with future allied coalitions;
3. Jobs: buying the F-35 guarantees highly profitable, high-tech work for the buyer's national aerospace industry.
To some degree, all three of these statements are inaccurate, at the very least, but somehow – possibly because of Lockheed-Martin's highly efficient P.R. – they are repeated by government officials all over the world as a sort of pro-F-35 mantra.
Ten years on, they warrant a closer look.
PART 1. "Fifth-generation" and other myths
Calling the F-35 a "fifth-generation" fighter but the first nonsensical claim made about this aircraft.
Without going too far into historical details, the US Air force's first operational jet fighter was the F-80; it was followed by the F-86 Saber, F-100 Super Saber, F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle, F-117 Nighthawk, and F-22 Raptor, each of which represents a generational leap over its predecessor. So, in fact, the F-22 Raptor represents the 8th generation of US jet fighters; just why the US Air Force and Lockheed chose to call the F-35 a "5th-generation" fighter is still a mystery.
Hats off to Lockheed's P.R. staff, then: they coined a meaningless catchphrase which has gained widespread acceptance throughout the world by the sole virtue of repetition "ad nauseam". And what politician is going to question such an impressive-sounding phrase, and the mysterious and powerful capabilities it implies?
Politicians know next to nothing about defense, so being able to pepper their sentences with expressions like "the only fifth-generation aircraft" gives them instant credibility in the eyes of the trusting public, and leaves other politicos with no come-backs, especially if it is followed up with references to the moral obligation of "buying the best equipment for our military."
But these much-vaunted "fifth-generation" capabilities are not only a misnomer; they are, in fact, much inflated if not over-hyped.
First of all, today's F-35 can barely fly, so all of its claimed "capabilities" actually refer to what it might eventually achieve IF its development program is entirely successful which, given its history over the past decade, is far from certain.
But let's assume it will be. As noted by Canada's Auditor-General in his justly celebrated April 3 report, "There is no accepted or objective definition of fifth generation capability," so clearly all reference to this catchphrase in just "marketing-speak."
Lacking any objective definition, how then do future customers define the "fifth-generation" capabilities they expect of the F-35?
The JSF Program Office's website has a list of new technologies that are integrated in the F-35's design, and these provide a good idea of what the F-35 is supposed to do if all goes well.
Lockheed Martin's F-35 website also contains a page on fifth-generation technologies.
Four recent statements by US Air Force generals, the Canadian Auditor-General and the Rand Corporation provide shorter, boiled-down definitions of what "fifth-gen" is supposed to mean.
From these definitions, it appears that what makes a so-called "fifth-gen" fighter is a combination of:
-- stealth;
-- high maneuverability;
-- advanced avionics;
-- networked data fusion from sensors and avionics; and
-- the ability to assume multiple roles.
That doesn't really sound like much of a return for a $400 billion investment, and even less so once one realizes that most of these capabilities are already in service today. In fact, once its magic P.R. cloak is stripped away, "fifth-gen" looks a lot less impressive than it sounds.
While they may have sounded revolutionary in the mid-1990s, when Joint Strike Fighter development first began, AESA radars, sensor fusion, networked operations, precision-guided weapons and other capabilities are relatively common 20 years later, and will be widespread once – if? -- the F-35 finally enters operational service sometime in the next decade.
Here's a reality check on how these so-called "fifth-generation" capabilities compare to what's already available today:
-- Stealth: the F-35's low radar cross-section and radar-absorbent surface coatings (i.e., paint) make it more difficult to detect by radar, but they do not make it invisible. In any case, detection by radar matters less and less because by switching on its radar a fighter becomes as visible as someone turning on a flashlight in a dark room.
So the preferred detection sensors are optical, like Infra-Red Scan and Track (IRST), and in this case the large and very hot exhaust plume of the F-35's 45,000-lb thrust engine is as visible as a blowtorch in the same dark room.
Stealth, in any case, is a relative concept, and depends on many variables. And, since the first "stealth" aircraft, the F-117, entered service almost 30 years ago, this is hardly a revolutionary capability. But it is, as it and other stealth aircraft have shown, a maintenance nightmare of extraordinary proportions.
Furthermore, the F-35 will only be stealthy if it carries nothing under its wings. This means no pylons, so no gun (except for the F-35A, which has an internal gun); no extra fuel tanks; and no large weapons, as the small dimensions of its two bomb bays allow internal carriage of only two Amraam missiles and two JDAM guided bombs. That is not an impressive weapon load for an aircraft that, as Gen. Miller noted above, is intended to penetrate ever-more formidable "growing anti-access, area-denial capabilities" in hostile territory.
A final word on the F-35's stealth: its design makes it less detectable by radar in its frontal sector, but not from the side, nor from the rear, where the laws of physics dictate it will be easier to detect than face-on.
The JSF operational concept is that this won't matter, since enemy ground defenses will be taken out at stand-off ranges, before they can detect incoming F-35s. But taken out with what: the two bombs each F-35 can carry?
-- high maneuverability: Contrary to some existing aircraft, the F-35 has no special maneuverability-enhancing design features such as canard forward surfaces, vectoring nozzles or "supercruise" capabilities that exist on other fighters already in service. Its thrust-to-weight ratio is limited and unlikely to improve since the F135 engine has limited growth potential.
Two decades ago, the Sukhoi Su-27 unveiled its celebrated "cobra" maneuver, demonstrating a degree of agility that until then had only been dreamed of.
But, again, maneuverability is something of a decoy: in modern and future combat, when aircraft are detected and engaged at ranges of over 100 km, whether a fighter is highly maneuverable or not is likely to matter far less than the performance of its sensors or the range and effectiveness of its weapons.
- advanced avionics: Full sensor fusion and networking capability already exist, and was notably demonstrated in combat by French Rafales and Royal Air Force Typhoons during the 2011 operations in Libya. This is a capability that the F-35 will deliver at the turn of the decade, if all goes well, so it is hardly revolutionary.
The F-35 is equipped with the APG-81 electronically-scanned radar, but this technology is already being retrofitted to previous-generation US fighters like the F-15E (APG-82(V)1 and the F-18E Super Hornet (APG-79); it is also available in pod form (AN/ASQ-236), has been exported to US allies, and is produced or in development by non-US manufacturers like Selex Galileo, Cassidian and Saab.
AESA radars also are being retrofitted to the Dassault Rafale and, if the partner nations can agree, will be to the Eurofighter Typhoon. An AESA radar is planned for the future Saab Gripen E/F (also known as Gripen NG), so this will be a run-of-the-mill technology by the time the F-35 finally enters service.
The F-35's networking capabilities are likely to exceed anything that is available today, but the improvement will be a matter of degree, not of nature, because today's combat aircraft are already networked through the Link 16 datalink, which is already in service and being retrofitted to many NATO and allied fighters.
The F-35 also features an innovative Distributed Aperture System (DAS), which consists of sensors mounted around the aircraft that will provide the pilot with a 360-degree, spherical view of his surroundings. That is a very significant technical advance, and will no doubt prove a real plus for the pilot because it will provide unmatched situational awareness – if it works as advertised, however, and if its data is presented in a way the pilot can assimilate and use.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/135080/f_35-reality-check-10-years-on-%28part-1%29.html
F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On -- Part 1: 'Fifth-Generation' and Other Myths (DEEL II)
The pilot's Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS) was designed to do this, but it stubbornly refuses to work despite a decade of design and testing. The Pentagon's Quick-Look Review (QLR), leaked late last year, rated the HMDS a "program-level high development risk" because it is plagued by faulty displays, night vision and image jitters, and latency issues: in short, it is not fit for purpose. Indeed, the QLR noted that it is less functional than legacy (previous-generation) equipment, adding that no satisfactory corrective has action has yet been identified.
So dire is the situation, in fact, that Lockheed has asked BAE Systems to adapt its existing Eurofighter helmet display as an interim solution.
This leads to a much bigger problem: since the HMDS was going to provide all the information that the pilot would ever need, no Head-Up Display was fitted to the F-35. So if whatever helmet display is finally selected cannot provide the same functionalities as HMDS, F-35 pilots will end up having inferior, "old-generation" situational awareness, which is somewhat ironical given what the F-35 promised.
This would not be acceptable, so the only fix is a redesign of the entire systems architecture, which at this stage is too complex, too time-consuming and too expensive to seriously consider.
However, a fix may be in the works. Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program manager, said May 8 that a fix being worked on may solve the HMDS' jitter picture and lag time issues. "I am focused on seeing the demonstration of those fixes working and being effective...That will be paced out through the remainder of this year and into 2013."
Other F-35 "innovations" such as IRST, passive sensors and integrated countermeasures are already operational on Rafale (SPECTRA suite), Typhoon (DASS); they are planned for Gripen NG and are also being developed for retrofit to older US fighters, like the IRST sensors for the US Navy's Block II Super Hornet, which will carry it recessed into the front of a fuel tank.
-- data fusion: Again, the idea of fusing data from all on-board sensors is nothing new, as it has been operational for several years on the latest European fighters, Rafale and Typhoon, and will be operational on the Gripen NG if that variant ever reaches service. French Rafales, for example, use their MICA missiles as additional sensors, and combine their data with that provided by their SPECTRA self-protection suite, radar, IRST, other onboard sensors and data received from other friendly aircraft, AWACS, or ground control centers to present a single, unified and constantly updated tactical picture to the pilot.
And it's becoming ever more banal, as evidenced by the ongoing effort by Boeing and the Naval Air Warfare Center to add a networking capability to the Distributed Targeting System which will soon be operational on the Super Hornet.
If, in a decade, the F-35 enters service with a modern data fusion capability, any improvement in terms of data fusion will be a matter of degree, not of nature.
--Multirole capability: There is no modern combat aircraft that doesn't claim to be capable of carrying out multiple roles, but even legacy US fighters routinely carry out widely diverse missions: F-15C interceptor and F-15E multirole/strike; F-18E Super Hornet (Air-to-air; strike/attack and electronic attack), and of course the F-16, whose latest versions are far more capable strike aircraft than the lightweight interceptor it was initially designed to be.
The "omnirole" Rafale has, or will, replace seven models of previous-generation aircraft used by the French air force and naval aviation for interception, ground attack, nuclear and conventional strike, and reconnaissance missions; it also has a naval variant.
The "swing-role" Eurofighter Typhoon is capable of interception and ground attack missions, and is to gain conventional strike capabilities with stand-off missiles, although these are more limited.
As the only Swedish air force combat aircraft, the original Saab JAS-35 Gripen developed since the 1980s was from the very beginning tasked with interception, ground attack, strike, reconnaissance and naval missions, including anti-ship. In fact, JAS is the Swedish acronym for Fighter / Attack / Reconnaissance, so multirole capabilities have been in service for decades.
So, again, there is nothing revolutionary in the capabilities the F-35 will bring to the party -- a decade from now, if all goes well, and at a cost of over $400 billion.
But there are considerable limitations to the F-35's own vaunted multirole capabilities. To remain stealthy, it can carry only internal weapons (two bombs and two air-to-missiles), which severely limits its combat firepower.
Its internal weapon load, at 4,000 lbs., is inferior to that of the F-117 Nighthawk, which could carry 5,000 lbs. of assorted internal stores in its internal bomb bays, so in this respect the F-35 is less capable than its stealth predecessor.
Interoperability
The governments of several F-35 partner countries, including Canada, have tried to justify their choice by claiming that they need the F-35 to be able to operate with the United States as part of future coalitions.
This is another nonsensical claim that has only gained traction because of the incompetence of politicians and the gullibility of their electorates.
In just the past decade, the US and their allies have carried out joint air operations in the former Yugoslavia, during both Iraq wars, in Kosovo, in Afghanistan, and most recently against Libya, while operating very different kinds of aircraft.
In fact, there is no need to fly the same aircraft: The only real requirement for joint operations is that participants be able to talk to each other and to exchange data, and this they have been able to do for decades. It is also desirable that staffs and pilots have previous experience of working together, and this is one thing that NATO does very well, and that bilateral exercises and bigger events like Red Flag routinely provide.
Also desirable, but lower down the scale, is that aircraft be able to refuel and rearm on allied air bases, and again this is already possible in the case of all NATO members (who use ground equipment to common standards) and the many allied countries who use European, French or US-made aircraft.
Even Russia uses NATO-standard ground equipment, as French officials discovered to their surprise back in the late 1970s, when a squadron of MiG-23s visited the French air force's famous Normandie-Niemen squadron at Reims air base, and were able to refuel and turn around using the base's ground equipment.
The inanity of the F-35's interoperability claims was clearly stated by NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Gen. Stephane Abrial, a former fighter pilot and chief of staff of the French air force, when he testified before the Canadian House of Commons Defence Committee on May 3.
According to a May 4 report published by Canada's Postmedia news, Abrial told the committee that "We do not advocate a single type of aircraft, single type of ships, single type of rifles....We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal." Abrial said interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield.
The minutes of the hearing can be found on Canada's Parliamentary website.
In any case, the F-35 itself is not as suited to coalition operations as its proponents claim. In fact, its design requires modifications to "...allow coalition training operations for the Joint Strike Fighter Program," according to the terms of a $14.1 million contract that Navair awarded to Lockheed on May 8, 2012.
This follows a much bigger, $602 million contract awarded to Lockheed on Nov. 10, 2003 to "...design, develop, verify and test a version of the JSF air system that is as common as possible to the U.S. air system within the National Disclosure Policy."
Both these awards testify to the differences between US and non-US versions of the F-35, and to the fact that US and non-US aircraft require modifications to train together.
While comparatively small, these contracts should however finally put to rest the myth that the F-35 is required to allow coalition operations between US and allied air forces.
A final irony
Last month, April 2012, was the anticipated completion date of the JSF's System Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. The contracts funding this phase, and worth $18.9 billion for the aircraft (to Lockheed) and $4.8 billion for its F135 engine (Pratt & Whitney), were awarded on October 26, 2001 and related work was "expected to be completed in April 2012."
Hopefully, no-one is holding his breath.
In any case, to remind readers of the initial goals of the JSF development contract, here is the original contract announcement in full (emphasis added):
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an $18,981,928,201 cost-plus-award-fee contract for the Joint Strike Fighter Air System Engineering and Manufacturing Development Program.
The principal objectives of this phase are to develop an affordable family of strike aircraft and an autonomic logistics support and training system.
This family of strike aircraft consists of three variants: conventional takeoff and landing, aircraft carrier suitable, and short takeoff and vertical landing.
Under this contract, the contractor will be required to develop and verify a production-ready system design that addresses the needs of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps and the United Kingdom.
Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (66%); El Segundo, Calif. (20%); and Warton/Samlesbury, United Kingdom (14%), and is expected to be completed in April 2012.
Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
This contract was competitively procured through a limited competition; two offers were received.
The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-02-C-3002).
Bottom line: "Fifth-gen capabilities" are a myth
All of the above demonstrates quite clearly that, based on the same definition as used by the F-35's manufacturer, its operators and objective outside observers, the "fifth-generation" capabilities claimed for the aircraft amount to little more than what is already operational today.
Only its "stealth" design features offer a real "plus" over previous-generation aircraft, but "stealth" only works in some circumstances, and only against some types of radar sensors, so the F-35 is a very long way from being the nearly invisible as its backers claim or imply, capitalizing on policitians' and the public's ignorance of most matters technical.
The F-35's Distributed Aperture System would give pilots a real plus over most existing aircraft in terms of situational awareness, but if – and only if – its data fusion works, and if the completed picture can be presented in a way pilots can assimilate and understand.
The fact is that, today, after ten years and $50 billion, the F-35 flight test program has demonstrated none of its over-hyped "fifth-generation" capabilities, which are in any case incremental improvements over existing capabilities rather than the revolutionary quantum leaps they are made out to be.
(end of Part 1)
The second part of this article will examine the F-35 program's co-production arrangements.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/135080/f_35-reality-check-10-years-on-%28part-1%29.html
The decision (Engels verhaal rondom de F35B/C)
http://www.thenavycampaign.com/2012/05/09/comment-on-the-jsf-variant-decision/
David Cameron has signed off a U-turn on controversial plans for Britain's aircraft carriers.
The prime minister has given Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond the green light to revert to the previous Labour administration's plans to buy the conventional jump-jet version of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Their decision marks an about-turn in what had been a central plank of the coalition government's defence strategy. The government had announced in the defence review of 2010, that it would buy the F35 Joint Striker Fighter carrier version, rather than the jump-jet version.
The decision was keenly backed by Mr Cameron as it would have allowed Britain to operate more closely with France and the United States.
It is understood that Mr Hammond will announce the changes at the House of Commons tomorrow, saying that the decision will save hundreds of millions of pounds.
Catapult and traps
The defence secretary's decision follows a meeting with the National Security Council, in which members discussed how the F35 carrier version would have been too expensive as it required the installation of a "catapult and traps" launch system to the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft system.
Costs for converting the carrier to the new aircraft type have reportedly risen from £1.2 bn to £2bn. Original Ministry of Defence estimates had been said to have suggested the cost of the work would have been around £400m.
However Labour seized on the reversal, saying that returning to their original plans would cost taxpayers £250m.
Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy told Channel 4 News: "If this is confirmed, it's a real shambles. The government's spent £250m of taxpayers' money on a decision on an aircraft carrier and an aeroplane, and are now about to do a U-turn back to Labour's old policy, and in the meantime, sell all the harrier jump jets to the Americans at a knock-down price, and we're not going to have airplanes or aircraft carriers for a decade.
"This is a personal humiliation for the prime minister. This was a big decision for David Cameron. The U-turn, when it comes, will reduce our capability and will cost us more money."
Faster delivery
Reverting to the F35-B vertical landing model is now believed to bring the launch date closer, to 2018, with sea trials expected to begin in 2017.
The government had previously said that installing catapults on the carriers would delay the arrival of the new vessels until at least 2020, with some sources suggesting they would not be ready before 2023.
Mr Hammond said that any decision would be fully explained. He said: "The Labour Party don't know what the decision is that we're going to announce shortly and putting any kind of figure on it will be sheer guess work on their part.
"We will make an announcement to Parliament and we will be completely transparent about the prcess we have gone through - how we've arrived at the decision that we have, and what the level of any costs involved are."
Defence analysts said that while a decision to revert to the F35 jump-jet would be cheaper in the short term, it could prove costly in the long run.
Longer range
Edward Hunt, senior consultant of IHS Jane's, said of the F35 jump-jet: "The vertical take off one is more complicated. It requires a big old lift van behind the engine which cuts fuel room and cuts internal weapons carriage room.
"The carrier version has larger wings, more space inside for weapons and fuel, so it gives it a longer range.
"Not only can it carry weapons, it can bring them back if it doesn't drop them. One of the problems with the B [jump-jet version] is that you might have to end up dropping very expensive weapons into the sea if you can't land with them."
He added: "The cost estimates for fitting the catapults and the carriers for using the C [carrier] variant are such that the decision's basically been taken on what appears to be saving money in the short term.
"That may prove to be a problem over the 40, 50, 60 years that the carrier vessels are in service."
http://www.channel4.com/news/u-turn-on-governments-aircraft-carrier-programme
General: Ill F-22 maintainers worked in cockpit
Posted : Wednesday May 9, 2012 14:18:59 EDT
The F-22 maintainers who reported dizziness, nausea and other signs of oxygen deprivation were working inside the cockpit while the plane was on the ground, Brig. Gen. Daniel Wyman, surgeon general of Air Combat Command, said Wednesday.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/05/air-force-general-says-ill-f22-raptor-maintainers-worked-in-cockpit-050912/
Growler could prove a winner: RAAF chief
14:28 AEDT Thu May 10 2012
The electronic warfare version of the RAAF's Super Hornet, known as the Growler, will provide Australia with a combat advantage which could prove decisive in any future conflict, the air force says.
In an address to the RAAF air power conference, Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the Growler was truly a game changer which the RAAF would exploit to the maximum.
And in a pitch for the troubled Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Air Marshal Brown recounted his own experiences flying aboard a US Air Force F-15 against the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor during a recent US Red Flag exercise.
"To put it bluntly we got our arse kicked," he said.
The RAAF now flies 24 Super Hornets, with 12 wired during production so they can be converted to Growler configuration, should the government opt to acquire this advanced system which is only operated by the US.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith told the conference this was a vital air power capability which would give the RAAF the ability to the jam electronic systems of aircraft and land-based radars and communication systems.
He said a decision would be made this year.
Air Marshal Brown said jammers on US Growlers were also capable of disabling remotely detonated improvised explosive devices and conducting air-launched cyber-attacks.
"The Growler is truly a game changer and a capability that the air force will look to exploit to the maximum," he said.
Air Marshal Brown said the fifth-generation JSF would meet Australia's needs for many decades, providing control of the air across the entire spectrum of conflict.
He said he had experienced the hard way advantages conferred by a fifth-generation capability. Flying aboard a dual seat F-15, he was repeatedly "killed" by adversary Raptors during the exercise.
"Let me tell you after this happened five times with not even a hint of seeing your opponent, it becomes very frustrating," he said.
Air Marshal Brown said the fifth-generation JSF would bring a new meaning to the term combat lethality.
"This is a significant capability that alters the calculus of power projection in the region," he said.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8465391
'Second best ... gets you killed': Airforce Chief wants more JSFs
David Ellery
May 10, 2012 - 2:27PM Read later
.
Australia needs at least 100 Joint Strike Fighters if the ADF is to stay a balanced force the Chief of Airforce says.
His comments come at a time when the Government is increasingly ambivalent about how many Joint Strike Fighters it will buy and when it will order them.
Air Marshall Geoff Brown has not ruled out the possibility the RAAF may have some JSFs in service in Australia by the end of 2019, despite this week's budget decision to defer the next purchase of 12 by two years.
Advertisement: Story continues below
He said there is no reason to believe - at this point - that the classic Hornets, dating back to the 1980s, can't be kept operational until the new planes are ready.
"Fighters are not a boutique capability, numbers matter," he told today's RAAF Air Power conference in Canberra.
"Air forces are like poker hands; second best gets you nothing and actually gets you killed."
He said Australia needed to invest in a fifth generation fighter if it wanted to be a "first rate airforce".
The JSF is the only fifth generation fighter available to Australia.
Describing his own experiences flying against an F-22 fifth generation fighter in an F-15D, Air Marshal Brown said a lot more than stealth was involved.
"At the post exercise debriefing I was amazed at the level of situational awareness the F22 guys had," he said.
Air Marshal Brown has welcomed the decision to consider upgrading 12 of Australia's Super Hornets to electronic warfare 'Growlers' this year.
"We saw the debut of the Growler in the air operations over Libya last year," he said.
"The planes were instrumental in shutting down the major Libyan surface to air missile sites and opening the door to other aircraft.
"Growlers would provide Australia's joint force with a combat advantage that would be decisive in many situations."
If Australia goes down the Growler route the RAAF would be the only air force outside the US with the capability
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/second-best--gets-you-killed-airforce-chief-wants-more-jsfs-20120510-1yehw.html#ixzz1uRbK8NXz
An F-35 option: Produce the Pacific Rim Fighter
Japan, Australia, Canada, and South Korea have under-utilized strengths in aerospace technology. We should put those abilities to use.
By Mark M. Miller
Published May 10, 2012 1:10 AM View story Email Comments To the Editor
Lockheed Martin photoF-22 Raptors in Marietta, Ga. on May 5. Sixty-five single-engine strike fighters are meant to replace 138 twin-engine multi-role CF-18s, now down to 77. They would spend almost all of their time having their Klingon cloaking device repaired.
To have an effective air force capability in the near- to mid-term, Canada will have to operate two different fighter aircraft types, and that is not a bad thing. The F-35 is looking to be neither affordable nor efficient as a do-everything fighter, and we must have aerial intercept capabilities for all three coasts, plus some ground attack forces for expeditionary operations.
If the Joint Strike Fighter program does produce a cost-effective first strike combat aircraft sometime in the mid-2020s, then we could procure a couple of squadrons of them to complement the 50 or more modern fighters that will replace most of the CF-18s in the near term.
On the chance that the JSF does not come to fruition, then we will still be involved in technologies that can be applied to future aircraft, such as a workable F-22 Raptor, or a more international Eurofighter-type aircraft.
Japan, Australia, Canada, and South Korea are pretty much in the same boat regarding the need for a modern high-tech fighter that is interoperable with allied nations. The F-35 may not meet the cost, timeline, or capabilities requirements for anyone.
Instead of just buying older Boeing or Lockheed technology, perhaps we should think outside the box. All four nations, very much including Canada, have under-utilized strengths in aerospace technology.
We should put those abilities to use, thereby increasing domestic expertise and allied co-operation. The notion that United States-controlled technology will never be surpassed is utter nonsense.
No one has a crystal ball that can foretell what will be relevant to future military operations, and putting all of our eggs in one technological basket could be suicide when there are no secrets in the cyber age.
Prior to the Vietnam War, the US went down the path of having no guns on fighters because missiles would do it all; history proved them incorrect, with rapid-fire cannon being tacked onto front line fighters, so that they could compete with Soviet designs. Assumptions can be deadly.
Aerial drones will not, in the medium term, replace tactical fighters. They will be capable of long-duration reconnaissance and patrol, as well as the search part of search and rescue.
But remotely-piloted drones require two-way communication connectivity from satellites, aircraft, or ground sources to operate. That connectivity requirement is a weak link, assuring that human-piloted aircraft will be around for quite a while.
In the end, Canada needs up to 100 fighter aircraft to meet our sovereignty requirements and allied obligations. We should stay involved in the JSF program as long as massive further investments are not required. But another fighter, preferably of the air superiority variety, is needed before the F-35 can be fully operational and combat ready.
Why not have the four Pacific Rim nations research a collective approach, in conjunction with European partners, which would take fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon to a high-level multi-role capability, while retaining its air superiority.
Canada and Australia have many similar requirements for a front-line fighter, but have downgraded significant range and twin-engine reliability thresholds to fit within the American playbook.
Rather than producing components to US military specifications, should we not also be involved in ventures to which we propose and integrate technology that would meet our sovereign needs, while boosting the tech sector?
By modifying a modern and proven allied fighter design that is twin-engine, exceeds Mach 2, has the ability to supercruise, is stealthier than earlier fourth-generation fighters, and has perhaps the best pilot-machine interface, we could only enhance allied forces abilities, and survivability, if times become troubled. We could jointly produce the Pacific Rim Fighter.
Please withhold your disbelief; the Yanks took the British Harrier technology and made it their own.
Mark M. Miller is a Vancouver-based research consultant who writes on international and military affairs. He is also a contributor to Esprit de Corps magazine.
http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/an_f35_option_produce_the_pacific_rim_fighter_05-10-2012
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/05/2012 | 08:26 uur
An F-35 option: Produce the Pacific Rim Fighter
Why not have the four Pacific Rim nations research a collective approach, in conjunction with European partners, which would take fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon to a high-level multi-role capability, while retaining its air superiority.
Rather than producing components to US military specifications, should we not also be involved in ventures to which we propose and integrate technology that would meet our sovereign needs, while boosting the tech sector?
By modifying a modern and proven allied fighter design that is twin-engine, exceeds Mach 2, has the ability to supercruise, is stealthier than earlier fourth-generation fighters, and has perhaps the best pilot-machine interface, we could only enhance allied forces abilities, and survivability, if times become troubled. We could jointly produce the Pacific Rim Fighter.
Wellicht als roepende in de woestijn, maar ik zou over een dergelijk idee zomaar enthousiast kunnen worden.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/05/2012 | 08:37 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/05/2012 | 08:26 uur
An F-35 option: Produce the Pacific Rim Fighter
Why not have the four Pacific Rim nations research a collective approach, in conjunction with European partners, which would take fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon to a high-level multi-role capability, while retaining its air superiority.
Rather than producing components to US military specifications, should we not also be involved in ventures to which we propose and integrate technology that would meet our sovereign needs, while boosting the tech sector?
By modifying a modern and proven allied fighter design that is twin-engine, exceeds Mach 2, has the ability to supercruise, is stealthier than earlier fourth-generation fighters, and has perhaps the best pilot-machine interface, we could only enhance allied forces abilities, and survivability, if times become troubled. We could jointly produce the Pacific Rim Fighter.
Wellicht als roepende in de woestijn, maar ik zou over een dergelijk idee zomaar enthousiast kunnen worden.
zowel Japan als Zuid -Korea heeft toch z'n eigen next-generation fighter projecten, zijn deze niet te combineren en of te versnellen ?
Japan : ATD-X foto's : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5f6ff8c90100vejh.html
Mitsubishi starts building ATD-X stealth prototype : http://kosuke2009.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/my-latest-for-jdw-mitsubishi-starts.html
Zuid Korea : nu een samenwerking met Turkije en Indonesie : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KF-X
Citaat van: Harald op 10/05/2012 | 09:35 uur
zowel Japan als Zuid -Korea heeft toch z'n eigen next-generation fighter projecten, zijn deze niet te combineren en of te versnellen ?
Japan : ATD-X foto's : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5f6ff8c90100vejh.html
Mitsubishi starts building ATD-X stealth prototype : http://kosuke2009.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/my-latest-for-jdw-mitsubishi-starts.html
Zuid Korea : nu een samenwerking met Turkije en Indonesie : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KF-X
Deze projecten zijn ongetwijfeld in een hoger versnelling te plaatsen echter ook in een hogere versnelling zullen deze landen/producenten minimaal 10 tot 15 jaar verder zijn voordat een eerste operationeel exemplaar kan worden uitgeleverd, dan zitten we ergens rond 2025.
Een project, noem het Eurofighter Tranche 4 of Rafale F4 zijn natuurlijk aanzienlijk sneller te realiseren.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/05/2012 | 09:48 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 10/05/2012 | 09:35 uur
zowel Japan als Zuid -Korea heeft toch z'n eigen next-generation fighter projecten, zijn deze niet te combineren en of te versnellen ?
Japan : ATD-X foto's : http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5f6ff8c90100vejh.html
Mitsubishi starts building ATD-X stealth prototype : http://kosuke2009.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/my-latest-for-jdw-mitsubishi-starts.html
Zuid Korea : nu een samenwerking met Turkije en Indonesie : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_KF-X
Deze projecten zijn ongetwijfeld in een hoger versnelling te plaatsen echter ook in een hogere versnelling zullen deze landen/producenten minimaal 10 tot 15 jaar verder zijn voordat een eerste operationeel exemplaar kan worden uitgeleverd, dan zitten we ergens rond 2025.
Een project, noem het Eurofighter Tranche 4 of Rafale F4 zijn natuurlijk aanzienlijk sneller te realiseren.
En bedenk de nog altijd matige politieke situatie tussen Japan en Zuid-Korea. Nog altijd speelt de 2WW daar een rol, en ook zijnn er territoriale disputen tussen deze landen. De angst voor China is echter groter....
Citaat van: .theage.com.au op 10/05/2012 | 08:06 uur
Describing his own experiences flying against an F-22 fifth generation fighter in an F-15D, Air Marshal Brown said a lot more than stealth was involved.
"At the post exercise debriefing I was amazed at the level of situational awareness the F22 guys had," he said.
Dit lijkt me meer iets te zeggen over de elektronica en sensoren dan de stealth van het toestel. een F-15D met betere sensoren had die "situational awareness" ook gehad dus. Geen argument vind ik voor stealth-toestellen als de F-22 en F-35.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 10/05/2012 | 09:48 uurDeze projecten zijn ongetwijfeld in een hoger versnelling te plaatsen echter ook in een hogere versnelling zullen deze landen/producenten minimaal 10 tot 15 jaar verder zijn voordat een eerste operationeel exemplaar kan worden uitgeleverd, dan zitten we ergens rond 2025.
Een project, noem het Eurofighter Tranche 4 of Rafale F4 zijn natuurlijk aanzienlijk sneller te realiseren.
Het laat denk ik wel zien dat in deze economische machten (of in opkomst) het besef doorgedrongen is dat zij wat betreft hun primaire militaire materiaal steeds meer hun eigen systemen moeten gaan ontwikkelen...en minder afhankelijk worden zo van wat in feiten hun grote economische concurrent(en) zijn en nog meer zullen worden...zoals de VS. De VS zal pogen deze landen onder haar invloed(ssfeer) te houden door ze te binden aan grote wapenprojecten, zoals de F-35. Maar ik voorspel dat dit steeds lastiger zal worden en deze landen steeds meer hun eigen middelen zullen gaan ontwikkelen en zo een grotere onafhankelijkheid zullen krijgen. (zie bijv. al de vele eigen Japanse wapensystemen en perikelen in Zuid-Korea en bijv. Turkije op dit vlak...hoezeer daarbij vaak nog wordt samengewerkt met Amerikaanse wapenfabrikanten en dus Amerikaanse technologie wordt gebruikt).
Op zich eens, maar teken daarbij wel aan dat de kosten voor ontwikkeling, productie, onderhoud, training, etc. met nieuwe wapensystemen wel steeds kostbaarder wordt door de snel voortschrijdende technologische ontwikkeling en de implementatie daarvan in die nieuwe wapensystemen. Het wordt daarmee voor steeds meer landen moeilijk om unilateraal zulke zaken te ontwikkelen. Gevolg: meer multilaterale samenwerkingsverbanden.
Citaat van: Mourning op 10/05/2012 | 13:01 uur
Op zich eens, maar teken daarbij wel aan dat de kosten voor ontwikkeling, productie, onderhoud, training, etc. met nieuwe wapensystemen wel steeds kostbaarder wordt door de snel voortschrijdende technologische ontwikkeling en de implementatie daarvan in die nieuwe wapensystemen. Het wordt daarmee voor steeds meer landen moeilijk om unilateraal zulke zaken te ontwikkelen. Gevolg: meer multilaterale samenwerkingsverbanden.
Wat opzich weer als een lodenlast werkt tijden het formulereen van het pakket van eisen.
Citaat van: Mourning op 10/05/2012 | 13:01 uur
Op zich eens, maar teken daarbij wel aan dat de kosten voor ontwikkeling, productie, onderhoud, training, etc. met nieuwe wapensystemen wel steeds kostbaarder wordt door de snel voortschrijdende technologische ontwikkeling en de implementatie daarvan in die nieuwe wapensystemen. Het wordt daarmee voor steeds meer landen moeilijk om unilateraal zulke zaken te ontwikkelen. Gevolg: meer multilaterale samenwerkingsverbanden.
hangt er vanaf wat je wilt. Kijk naar de Chinezen/pakistanen. Zij weten ook wel dat hun JF17 een prutsstraaljager is. Echter, voor 70% van de taken voldoet dat ding misschien gewoon, door juist nauwelijks gebruik te maken van bestaande technologieën, en die op een goede manier samen te voegen, krijg je een acceptabele fighter. Een F35, die voor een groot deel uit 'revolutionaire' technologieën moest bestaan, is daardoor ook inherent onzeker en duur. Een nieuwe jager hoeft niet altijd duurder te worden, het is maar de vraag hoe 'revolutionair' je het wilt hebben. 20% innovatie of of 80% innovatie?
Citaat van: Elzenga op 10/05/2012 | 10:27 uur
Citaat van: .theage.com.au op 10/05/2012 | 08:06 uur
Describing his own experiences flying against an F-22 fifth generation fighter in an F-15D, Air Marshal Brown said a lot more than stealth was involved.
"At the post exercise debriefing I was amazed at the level of situational awareness the F22 guys had," he said.
Dit lijkt me meer iets te zeggen over de elektronica en sensoren dan de stealth van het toestel. een F-15D met betere sensoren had die "situational awareness" ook gehad dus. Geen argument vind ik voor stealth-toestellen als de F-22 en F-35.
Als Stealth in je PvE (programma van eisen) staat voor een "tender" uitschrijving, dan heb je maar 2 echte keuzes : F-22 en F-35 en in mindere mate een F-15SE
In alle andere andere gevallen kunnen veel van de hedendaagse toestellen, voorzien van de nieuwste sensoren, software en systemen, dezelfde taken, missie's uitvoeren als een F-22 en F-35 waarbij Stealth niet vereist is of geen toegevoegde waarde heeft.
Citaat van: Harald op 10/05/2012 | 14:13 uurAls Stealth in je PvE (programma van eisen) staat voor een "tender" uitschrijving, dan heb je maar 2 echte keuzes : F-22 en F-35 en in mindere mate een F-15SE
In alle andere andere gevallen kunnen veel van de hedendaagse toestellen, voorzien van de nieuwste sensoren, software en systemen, dezelfde taken, missie's uitvoeren als een F-22 en F-35 waarbij Stealth niet vereist is of geen toegevoegde waarde heeft.
Door dat stealth aspect inderdaad toe te voegen aan de PvE en heel belangrijk te maken en doen klinken is het vrij eenvoudig de vaak onwetende politici te overtuigen van de noodzaak van de F-35 in dit geval. Dat er geen echte operationele noodzaak is voor stealth...althans niet voor Nederlandse inzet...dat vertellen ze er natuurlijk dan niet bij. En verschillende politici horen graag dat onze (militaire) belangen en "vijanden" dezelfde zijn als die van de VS. Terwijl ook dat niet waar is. Ik snap best dat de VS stealth-toestellen wenst gezien haar strategische belangen en potentiële "vijanden". Maar dat geldt (wat mij betreft) niet voor Nederland. Zeker als ik de inzet van de laatste jaren bekijk en de potentiële conflicten waar Nederland actief aan zou kunnen gaan deelnemen. Maar goed, dit is meer voor het topic "vervanging F-16".
En hiermee is het dan definitief (?)
Groot-Brittannië kiest andere variant JSF LONDEN - Groot-Brittannië heeft plannen voor de aanschaf van de marinevariant van de F-35 Joint Strike Fighter op nieuwe vliegdekschepen teruggedraaid. De voorkeur wordt gegeven aan een andere variant van de JSF. Dat heeft de Britse minister van Defensie Philip Hammond donderdag laten weten.
Hammond zei in het parlement dat vertragingen in de leveringen en de oplopende kosten niet acceptabel zijn. De vliegdekschepen zouden onder meer moeten worden uitgerust met katapulten en vangkabels om de vliegtuigen te lanceren en af te remmen bij de landing. Er komt nu een andere variant van de F-35 op de schepen, de F-35B, die verticaal kan opstijgen en landen.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/12102731/__Andere_variant_JSF_Groot-Brittani__.html
Philip Hammond defends aircraft carrier U-turn
Defence secretary says PM's judgment on jets was right, despite decision to reverse it because of its £5bn cost
Nick Hopkins
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 May 2012 14.32 BST
Labour criticised the government for scrapping Ark Royal before a replacement was available. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Philip Hammond insisted he would "not blindly pursue" a key defence programme personally endorsed by the prime minister as he announced a U-turn over the type of fighters needed for the military's two new aircraft carriers.
The defence secretary said the delays and costs of putting the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) wanted by Downing Street on the carriers were now too great, and the Ministry of Defence had accepted "our approach must change".
Putting a brave face on the decision, MoD officials admitted it was easy to be clever with hindsight, but rejected suggestions the about-face had been caused by the rush to complete the 2010 strategic defence and security review (SDSR).
In the review, David Cameron demanded the military buy the F35-C version of the JSF, which needs "cats and traps" to launch it from deck. He then mocked Labour for buying the less capable F35-B, which takes off like a harrier jump jet.
But the MoD has pirouetted again, with Hammond telling MPs the costs of converting the carriers to take "cats and traps" had risen so much, and the delays to the F35-C had become so great, it was right to revert back.
Defence officials said the MoD had already spent £40-50m to convert one of the carriers. They predicted the total cost of putting "cats and traps" on both of the new ships would total £5bn – 10 times the amount estimated in 2005.
However, a source denied Cameron's decision could be described as a mistake.
"Hindsight is an easy thing," said a senior source. "We can all make judgments about what happened last week. We know more now than we knew then. The judgment [in 2010] was a reasonable one. It is easy from this position to say we would have made a different choice." The source said further analysis of costs in recent months had shown "unexpected" problems.
In his statement to the Commons, Hammond also tried to deflect criticism from Downing Street. "The 2010 SDSR decision on carriers was right at the time, but the facts have changed."
The carrier programme has been dogged by delays and technical problems that were compounded by the decision to buy the F35-C. Though it is a better all-round fighter than its sister aircraft, putting "cats and traps" on the ships pushed up costs so much the MoD was told it would have to mothball the first of the carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, as soon as it was built.
By reverting back to the jump jet version of the JSF, which is much closer to production, the Queen Elizabeth should now be ready for operations, equipped with 12 fighters, by 2018.
The decision also means the RAF will fly the "B" version of the JSF, with each aircraft, being built by the US firm Lockheed Martin, now thought to cost between £50m and £100m.
The U-turn was supported by the heads of the three services and the chief of the defence staff, General Sir David Richards, as well as Hammond, the defence source said.
The defence secretary asked Downing Street to endorse the move in March, but was rebuffed.
During sharp exchanges at Westminster, the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, accused the government of wasting two years, and claimed the government's approach was "as incoherent as it is ludicrous".
Murphy called on the prime minister to apologise for his incompetence, and questioned why the government had been in such a rush to scrap the UK's only aircraft carrier, Ark Royal, before a replacement was available.
"Standing at the dispatch box, the prime minister announced his plans to reverse Labour's carrier strike policy, scrap the Harrier, sell Ark Royal, build two carriers but mothball one, sack trainee pilots and downgrade British power at sea.
"But this U-turn has now gone full circle and nothing has been gained. Two years wasted."
The former Labour defence secretary Bob Ainsworth told MPs the government had taken the right decision. The U-turn had brought "some sanity" to the carrier programme, he said.
"But I can't go along with the excuse ... that the facts have changed," he said. "The fundamental facts were there at the time and have not changed. We have been in an extremely expensive cul-de-sac for the last 18 months as a result of a shambles of an SDSR."
Hammond said he was "not interested in trading insults about what happened in the past".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/10/hammond-aircraft-carrier-u-turn
Eeuwig zonde. Nouja, eeuwig, in ieder geval tot ze wéér tot inzicht komen.
Van harte aanbevolen:
Een artikel van Giovanni de Briganti / (Source: defense-aerospace.com; published May 9, 2012)
Ter ere van het tienjarig jubileum van de samenwerking van de partnerlanden om te komen tot een 5th generation fighter. de F-35.
{This is a particularly appropriate time to review the program's progress as 2012 marks the tenth anniversary of seven foreign countries' signing on to the program. The eighth foreign partner, the United Kingdom, had joined the year before.}
Zoals bij iedereen bekend wil het project niet zo lukken, pompen we er met zijn allen vele miljarden in en toch bijven bepaalde politici, bepaalde ambtenaren en bepaalde industriële belanghebbenden er bij dat alleen de JSF.......
{Generally, the same three reasons are quoted by governments:
1. Only the F-35 has "fifth-generation capabilities," including stealth and data fusion, that will ensure air supremacy in the future;
1. Only the F-35 allows full interoperability with US forces and with future allied coalitions;
1. Jobs: buying the F-35 guarantees highly profitable, high-tech work for the buyer's national aerospace industry.
To some degree, all three of these statements are inaccurate, at the very least, but somehow – possibly because of Lockheed-Martin's highly efficient P.R. – they are repeated by government officials all over the world as a sort of pro-F-35 mantra. }
Dit is een hele mooie en uitgebreide samenvatting van de bezwaren die ik, en vele met mij keer op keer uiten. Als ik dat doe krijg ik verwijten over me heen:
* Dat ik niet weet waar ik het over heb,
* Dat andere toestellen gewoon niet de beoogde kwaliteiten van de JSF kunnen benaderen.
* Dat ik links ben.... (of in ieder geval suggereert men dat dan.)
* Dat ik betaald wordt door Saab of andere aanbieders.
* In het geval van Saab Gripen suggereert men dat de Gripen Demonstrator niet de E/F versie is. Dat klopt, maar is de F-35 LRIP 1 t/m 6 wel de volledige gevechtsklare variant? Alleen vanwege het problematische testprogramma zijn alle productietoestellen nu ineens omgetoverd in testtoestellen. En nog kunnen ze het beoogde testprogramma niet volledig afdraaien.
Lees het hele artikel:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/135080/f_35-reality-check-10-years-on-(part-1).html (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/135080/f_35-reality-check-10-years-on-(part-1).html)
Citaat van: Chrisis op 10/05/2012 | 16:01 uur
maar is de F-35 LRIP 1 t/m 6 wel de volledige gevechtsklare variant? Alleen vanwege het problematische testprogramma zijn alle productietoestellen nu ineens omgetoverd in testtoestellen. En nog kunnen ze het beoogde testprogramma niet volledig afdraaien.
`
Volgens mij pas bij LRIP 9 dat ze alles beproefd hebben en dan krijg je de eerste volledige "gevechtsklare" F-35.
ALS alles werkt ? ... er zijn nog wat hobbels die opgelost moeten worden, dusssss ...
Citaat van: Harald op 10/05/2012 | 16:27 uur
Citaat van: Chrisis op 10/05/2012 | 16:01 uur
maar is de F-35 LRIP 1 t/m 6 wel de volledige gevechtsklare variant? Alleen vanwege het problematische testprogramma zijn alle productietoestellen nu ineens omgetoverd in testtoestellen. En nog kunnen ze het beoogde testprogramma niet volledig afdraaien.
`
Volgens mij pas bij LRIP 9 dat ze alles beproefd hebben en dan krijg je de eerste volledige "gevechtsklare" F-35.
ALS alles werkt ? ... er zijn nog wat hobbels die opgelost moeten worden, dusssss ...
Je kan dus beter een interim kist aanschaffen en in 2020 besluiten of je de F35 wil in 202?. (wel mee blijven doen aan de ontwikkeling natuurlijk)
Cameron's F-35 U-turn: BAE Systems still calls the shots at No 10
By Lewis Page
Posted in Government, 10th May 2012 14:40 GMT
Comment So there it is: done. As this is written, Defence minister Phillip Hammond is on his feet in the House of Commons, trying to justify the fact that he and his boss, David Cameron, have decided that the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier (maybe carriers) will not now have any catapults or arrester gear in order to save money. This means that the only aeroplanes able to fly from British decks will be the F-35B supersonic stealth jumpjets.
Maybe there's some way you could put more doors and motors and extra doodads on there and give yourself some more stealth and maintenance headaches ... it's hard to say how, though
It's well known that the F-35B will cost a lot more to buy and more to run than the F-35C catapult version: and it's also well known that the main cost of aircraft carriers is not the ships but the planes. So, right out of the gate, we can see that this is a foolish decision.
In fact it's a lot worse than it seems, as the contest in real life was not between the F-35B and the F-35C: it was between the F-35B and - for the immediate future - one or another cheap, powerful, modern carrier jet already in service. This would most most likely have been the F-18 Hornet as used by the US Navy and many other air forces around the globe, but possibly the French Rafale instead of or alongside Hornets.
In fact the UK will not be able to afford either the F-35B or the F-35C in any large numbers any time soon. Both planes are, after all, brand new supersonic stealth aircraft - only the second make of supersonic stealth aircraft ever built, in fact, and the first ever which can land on ships. They are brand new, bleeding edge kit and will cost accordingly. Both planes are still in flight test at the moment, in fact, and the F-35 programme as a whole has suffered serious cost and time overruns. This has led to delays to US orders, which have in turn pushed up costs for other early purchasers. Production is still at a low rate only.
Thus, if the Royal Navy had managed to get its hands on a catapult carrier, it would have been compelled (very happily!) to buy or lease an interim carrier jet to tide it over until a reasonable number of F-35Cs could be bought for a reasonable price - probably at some point in the 2020s. There would be no need for a full force of F-35Cs any sooner than the 2030s, by which point they would be affordable and there might be a real need for their stealth and other advanced capabilities.
Fortunately in that case, the F-18 Hornet - the US Navy's current combat plane - would be easily and cheaply obtained. Many hundreds of Hornets have already been made, a large worldwide fleet is in operation and so running costs are low, production would otherwise cease fairly soon. The Hornet would be a steal. Royal Navy pilots are already flying it, in preparation for the happy day when a catapult-equipped HMS Prince of Wales should join the British fleet and Britain would get a powerful carrier air capability again and avoid such future embarrassments as Libya, where just about everyone else was able to put more aircraft into the sky above the battlefields.
Of course this would have been disastrous news for some people. Once there were some F-18s with British markings on them, there would almost never be any good reason to send our existing landbased combat jets - the Tornado and the Eurofighter - to war. Both of these planes cost enormous sums to use: they were built by ineffient and fragmented international consortia, they aren't in service in very large numbers, and the maintenance and support contracts under which the British forces operate them are cripplingly expensive. In the only likely mission for British jets in the near future - ground attack - they are both inferior in performance and capability to the F-18. As for the seldom-required air-to-air combat mission, the Tornado is incapable of this and the Eurofighter probably isn't a lot better than a Hornet. Not that it matters: air to air combat hardly ever happens and when it does the adversary planes and pilots are never good enough to cause any proper Western aircraft a problem (unless there is a lack of radar aircraft, of course, which there will be thanks to today's announcement).
So once we had some F-18s we would seldom bother using our Eurofighters and Tornados, and we would surely rethink our current plans to massively upgrade them. We might in fact, if we were smart, reconsider having them at all.
And this would be terrible news for the company which has those fat service contracts under which those planes are run, the company which built the British parts of them: namely BAE Systems plc. This firm is nowadays a multinational which makes most of its money - and has the great majority of its employees - outside the UK, but it still owns the great bulk of the remaining British defence industry. As such it would lose many, many billions if the Eurofighter was not upgraded for ground attack, if the Tornado was got rid of - or just if those two planes didn't get flown so much.
A catapult carrier in the Royal Navy, then, is something that BAE Systems passionately does not want to see happen.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/10/f35_u_turn_idiocy/
British U-turn on US jets damages credibility of UK defence chiefs
The credibility of the mandarins and top brass in Whitehall responsible for spending billions of pounds of taxpayers' money on weapons, is already stretched after years of delays, mistakes, poor judgment and cost overruns.
It seems threadbare after the fiasco over the choice of plane to fly from the two large aircraft carriers being built in British shipyards.
The government's much-trumpeted strategic and security defence review (SDSR), agreed in October 2010, was adamant. Its Labour predecessor, it said, "committed to carriers that would have been unable to work properly with our closest military allies". It added: "It will take time to rectify this error, but we are determined to do so".
The SDSR continued: "We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier to enable it to fly a version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF, now commonly called the F35) )with a longer range and able to carry more weapons". It went on: "Crucially, that will allow our carrier to operate in tandem with the US and French navies, and for American and French aircraft to operate from our carrier and vice versa".
All in all, said the strategic defence review, the "cats and traps" (catapult and arrestor gear) version of the F35, was much better than the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL jumpjet ) version chosen by Labour.
The version that would use a catapult to take off had a longer range and greater payload and this, not the number of aircraft, was the "criticial requirement", said the SDSR. This carrier version of the F35 would also be "cheaper "and "more cost-effective", reducing the total cost throughout its planned decades long life by as much as 25%, we were told.
Now we are told that none of these statements was worth the paper it was written on. The government has decided to scrap its decision to go for the carrier version of the F35 and decided, after all, to opt for the STOVL version which it criticised Labour for choosing on the grounds it was less effective and more expensive.
British defence officials made it clear on Thursday that the U turn was the result of the costs involved in converting the carriers and equip them with "cats and traps". The estimate at the time of the SDSR that the costs of conversion would be £1bn a carrier had doubled to £2bn.
Cost was clearly the decisive factor. Yet government officials now suggest that this had actually forced them in the end to do the right thing. The "savings" made by the U turn meant that both carriers - the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales - would now be able to carry aircraft (the original idea was that the former would be mothballed as soon as it was completed) and that the aircraft could start flying from them in 2020, some three years earlier than originally planned.
A Ministry of Defence document, marked "Secret – UK eyes only", recently leaked to the Daily Telegraph, says the STOVL jump jet version of the F35 is both more expensive and not as militarily effective as the conventional "cats and traps" version "in almost all cases".
Contrary to what is said in the MoD document, and what was stated earlier in the SDSR, government officials now claim there be "no capability gap" as a result of the government's decision to opt for the STOVL jumpjet version after all. British officials claim they have discovered that there is no difference after all between the two versions as far as both the number of weapons they can carry or their range was concerned. And the French really don't mind not being able to land their Rafale planes on British carriers, British officials say.
The British F35s would be too heavy, anyway, to land on the French carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, they add.
The development of the F35, a stealth fighter bomber made by Lockheed Martin, has been plagued by technical problems and cost overruns for years.
Last year, the US senate armed services committee came within one vote of calling for the cancellation of the entire F35 programme.
British defence officials declines to say how much the F35s will cost. "Prices are yet to be negotiated", said one well-placed official on Thursday. The cost has soared over the past few years and each aircraft is now estimated to cost about £60m, more than twice the original estimate. "The cost issue isn't going to go away", writes William Hartung in Prophets of War - Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Nation Books).
Britain will buy just 12 of the JSFs for the carriers, under present plans. Its original order was for a total of 140. Other countries which expressed an interest in buying them are having second thoughts. A Canadian politician quoted by Hartung described the plane as a "flying credit card".
The combined cost of the two carriers was first put, by the Labour government, at £3.5bn. It is now estimated to be £6bn. If the JSF planes, even the small number Britain is now prepared to buy for its carriers, the cost of the carrier programme is likely to exceed £10bn.
When I suggested this some years ago, senior MoD officials scoffed.
Meanwhile, questions are being raised, not least in the US, about whether aircraft carriers would anyway be increasingly vulnerable to long range missiles from potentially hostile states, including China, and that the F35's role would be undertaken better, and at less risk, by pilotless drones and cruise missiles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/defence-and-security-blog/2012/may/10/defence-fighter-aircraft
Wel niet echt een fighter, maar het is de opvolging van een vorig stuk.
Official says India to buy 75 Swiss Pilatus trainer aircraft for air force pilots
By Associated Press,
NEW DELHI — The Indian government on Thursday cleared the purchase of 75 Swiss Pilatus aircraft to train new air force pilots who had faced a shortage of trainers, an official said.
The delivery of the trainer aircraft, costing around $560 million, is expected to begin by mid-2013, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to talk to reporters.
The Cabinet Committee on Security, chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, gave the approval at its meeting Thursday.
The approval was delayed by nearly a year as a competing Korean aircraft maker, Korea Aerospace Industries, alleged that the Swiss manufacturer had submitted an incomplete bid regarding pricing, the Press Trust of India news agency reported.
India is facing an acute shortage of trainer aircraft after a fleet of HPT-32 basic trainer aircraft was grounded following an accident three years ago.
India already is in the process of getting 57 Hawk advanced trainer jets from Britain in a nearly $1.1 billion deal.
India also is buying 126 French-made combat aircraft in a massive $11 billion deal that will increase the might of the world's fourth largest air force with its first Rafale jets.
India has become the world's biggest arms importer as an economic boom has allowed it to push modernization of its military, and major arms manufacturers are wooing the country as it replaces its obsolete Soviet-era weapons and buys new equipment.
The Indian air force has suffered crashes of 55 percent of its front line MiG fleet acquired from the former Soviet Union.
Of the 872 MiG fighters acquired since 1966, 482 have been lost in crashes since 1972. Defense Minister A.K. Antony recently said the causes of accidents were both human error and technical defects.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
RAAF, buying new or HUG ?
May 10/12: Need a HUG?
In the wake of budget plans that would slash defense spending, and move further F-35A buys back 2 years due to delays in the program, Australia is considering its bridging options. Minister for Defence Stephen Smith:
"The Budget effect of [our F-35A delay] is that it takes out of the forward estimates for this year's budget about $1.6 billion.... In the meantime, I will not allow, and the Government will not allow, a gap in our air combat capability.... Government will also consider whether any alternative options need to be implemented to supplement and ensure our air combat capability in the light of Joint Strike Fighter delays.
An obvious option is the [F/A-18F]... However, other alternatives will be examined before any decision is taken. This includes considering the life of our existing 71 'classic' F/A-18 Hornets [via the HUG program]."
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/
HUG = Hornet UpGrade, upgrade progrmma voor de bestaande Hornets, F-18A en B in dienst bij de RAAF
http://www.boeing.com.au/ViewContent.do?id=46165
Citaat van: Harald op 11/05/2012 | 08:25 uur
I will not allow, and the Government will not allow, a gap in our air combat capability....
Ik zou zo maar eens kunnen gaan houden van de Down Under instelling! Misschien kunnen we een aantal lieden (w.o. H Hillen) op cursus sturen.
Mijn voorspelling: 24 extra SH ten koste van 24 F35.
Totaal voor RAAF: 48 F18E en 76 F35A
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 11/05/2012 | 08:41 uur
Citaat van: Harald op 11/05/2012 | 08:25 uur
I will not allow, and the Government will not allow, a gap in our air combat capability....
Ik zou zo maar eens kunnen gaan houden van de Down Under instelling! Misschien kunnen we een aantal lieden (w.o. H Hillen) op cursus sturen.
Mijn voorspelling: 24 extra SH ten koste van 24 F35.
Totaal voor RAAF: 48 F18E en 76 F35A
Waarbij een aantal F-18F's omgebouwd worden naar de volledig Growler-uitvoering, dus inclusief jammers.
March 30/12: EA-18G initial buyAustralia announces an A$ 19 million buy of long-lead time items, which would be used to convert RAAF F/A-18Fs into EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. This is on top of the A$ 35 million spent to ensure that 12 new-build F/A-18Fs came with some of the necessary systems already built-in, which is much cheaper that cutting the planes open to retrofit them later. At the same, all concerned stress that no final decision has been taken regarding that conversion. Minister for Defence Stephen Smith:
"Growler was used very effectively by the US Navy in the recent Libya conflict.... Whether we proceed down the track to adopt and acquire the Growler capability is a very substantial and significant decision.... The Government has always been attracted to this capability, which is why on two occasions in 2009 and now, for the expenditure of a modest capital sum, we have kept ourselves in the game in this respect.... [Further] judgments and decisions will be made in the course of this year.... The formal process in terms of acquiring the long-lead items is what's described as a Letter of Request and we've received every indication from the United States system, including the United States Air Force, that our Letter of Request will be accepted.... So we are absolutely confident that if we determine to pick up the capability that our United States colleagues will respond positively. We've been working very closely with them in that respect."http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/
Australia sets out F-18 maintenance tender
May 11, 2012
Australia has sent out a request for tender for deeper maintenance for its fleet of 71 Classic Hornet fighter aircraft.
The announcement, made by Minister for Defense Materiel Jason Clare, is for operational fighting trainers, computer-based training systems, maintenance training systems and more ground support and test equipment.
"The F/A-18 Hornet is a very capable multi-role fighter which can undertake a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions including air combat, close air support of ground troops and interdiction of enemy supply lines," Clare said.
"This contract will provide all deeper maintenance requirements for the 55 single-seat and 16 dual-seat aircraft and associated systems."
The RFT closes in July with the contract expected to start in April 2013.
The decision to send out an RFT comes as the government announced deep defense budget cuts for new equipment.
Australia's Hornets, now made by Boeing but originally by McDonnell-Douglas, are powered by two low bypass F404-GE-400 turbofan engines that give the aircraft a speed of around Mach 1.8 and an operational ceiling of 45,000 feet.
Avionics include Hughes APG73 multi-role radar and an inertial navigation system, government data shows.
The variety of weapons includes AIM-120 AMRAAM active radar guided missiles, AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guarded long-range missiles and AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared seeking missiles.
In August Australia said it would consider the purchase of more F/A-18 Super Hornets if delays to the Joint Strike Fighter program meant the country would have a capability gap, Defense Minister Stephen Smith said at the time, but no firm decision on the extra F-18 purchase has been made.
"It's early days. I don't want people to run or leap to a conclusion that that is the path we'll go down," he said. "There is some more time. We need to continue to monitor the situation very carefully and closely."
In 2007, Australia ordered 24 Boeing F/A-18 fighters -- originally a McDonnell Douglas aircraft -- as an interim replacement for its General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark tactical strike fighters.
The F/A-18 is filling the gap left by the F-111 and when the conventional variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35A Lightning II, arrives -- now delayed for two years as of this month.
Australia, alongside the United States, was the prime customer for the Aardvark. It had been in service with the U.S. Air Force since 1967 and the Australian air force since 1973. It was phased out by the United States in the late 1990s and by Australia in December.
Australia gave final approval in late 2009 for the purchase of the first 14 JSF aircraft, worth $3 billion and to be delivered in 2014.
But this month the recently re-elected Labor government of Julia Gillard announced a major revamp to defense spending that includes a two-year delay for accepting the first JSF.
The government is to chop $5.4 billion out of its defense budget over four years, and delaying the JSF delivery will save about $1.6 billion, a report by The Australian newspaper said.
The cuts include a reduction of 1,000 civilian defense staff.
The Gillard government also will scrap purchases of self-propelling artillery but will press ahead with in a multibillion-dollar project to build 12 submarines.
Copyright 2012 U.P.I.
George Kerevan: No happy ending in sights for jump jet fairy tale
Published on Friday 11 May 2012 00:00
THE quest for shiny new planes and an aircraft carrier to put them on defies all logic and costs a ridiculous amount
ONCE upon a time, a Labour government ordered two giant aircraft carriers it did not need, to fight foreign wars its electorate no longer had the stomach for, and with money it did not possess. Why it did so has been lost to the memory of everyone involved.
Perhaps it was nostalgia for Trafalgar. Perhaps because Labour ministers wanted to curry favour with the White House. Perhaps it had to do with buying votes in Scotland, where the carriers were to be built. Jim Murphy, shadow secretary for defence, might remind us.
Aircraft carriers need planes. The clue is in the name. Fortunately, there are many proven, cost-effective designs to choose from. The French Rafale that bombed the hell out of Colonel Gaddafi, for instance. Using Rafales would allow France and Britain to pool their carrier fleet. Or the battle-hardened American F-18, which you can buy off the shelf for a pittance.
Unfortunately, it is law of nature that admirals like shiny new toys, especially if it gets up the nose of the army and RAF. It is another law of nature that defence contractors want the taxpayer to buy the next-generation weapon system, for which they can charge the earth. So the Labour Government ordered off the drawing board the most expensive aircraft ever planned since the Wright brothers flew in 1903. As befits a fantasy, this aircraft goes under a bewildering variety of names: the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, and the Lightning II.
The cost of the F-35 project is truly staggering. The US is forking out $396bn (£245bn) just to buy the aircraft. The Manhattan Project, to build the atomic bomb, cost a mere $26bn in today's money. Allowing for inflation, Nasa spent only $109bn getting to the moon. A single F-35 is likely to cost nearly $200 million. You could buy half a dozen F-18s for that, or a couple of Rafales.
Why does the F-35 cost so much? Partly because it is a family of planes: one that operates from concrete runways, a jet catapulted from a carrier, and a jump jet that hovers. Designing this at the same time is complicated and expensive, as the different branches of the military fight one another. Then to save time and money, the Pentagon decided to put the F-35 into production before the first test flight. This has resulted in an ever-expanding bill to fix problems that should have been rectified before manufacturing started.
The gainers are the defence companies. This includes BAE Systems, which has a stake in building both the F-35 and Britain's carriers. The contractors have bamboozled the politicians into believing the F-35 will be a miracle plane that is stealthy to radar. But you don't need stealth to be a day bomber – a good pair of binoculars will catch you. Besides, you loose stealth if you hang bombs and rockets under your wings.
Duly bamboozled, the Labour government decided in 2001 to buy around 150 of the jump jet version of the F-35. This was an exceedingly odd decision as the whole point of ordering two giant carriers was to equip them with catapults that could launch the standard version of the F-35 – a version that can carry more bombs and fly further than the jump jet, which uses all its engine power to take-off and land vertically. If you want jump jets, then you can make do with cheaper, smaller helicopter carriers. But the RAF in particular wanted jump jets to replace its existing Harriers and so that is what we ordered.
As years went by, the bill for the carriers got so big it ate the rest of the defence budget. Enter the Tory-Lib Dem government in 2010, determined to bring things under control. But as with Edinburgh's trams, the outgoing Labour administration had deliberately signed contracts to make it impossible to cancel the carriers. So the coalition added its own form of madness. It decreed one carrier would be built but mothballed. The second would be completed with a catapult, and the order for jump jets converted to the standard version.
To save cash, the existing 74-stong Harrier fleet was flogged to the US Marines for only $50m. The Royal Navy resigned itself to having no fixed-wing aircraft for a decade. No one asked the RAF what it would do without new jump jets. As only 50 of the costly F-35s are now likely to be ordered, the RAF seemed fated to emerge with nothing.
Two years on and the coalition announced yesterday it is ordering jump jets after all and scrapping the catapult plan.
The reason for the embarrassing U-turn is the (alleged) cost of redesigning one carrier to take the electric catapults – an additional £2bn. Yet Sean Stackley, assistant US Navy secretary, claims the cost of the catapult equipment is £458m, with America paying all the development bills. How can it cost another £1.5bn to fit this kit? Unless the contractors are gold-plating their receipts.
Alternatively, it could be that the Pentagon and the US Marine Corps, who also want the jump jet F-35, have pressured Britain to revert to the original plan to make it difficult for Congress to cancel the project altogether. On the upside, Britain could see the jump jet F-35 fly off the first of its new carriers in 2018 – earlier than planned.
A fairy tale with a happy ending? Hardly. After spending nearly £20bn, Britain will have a single aircraft carrier operational – one large enough for any stray Iranian missile to pick out easily. At best, there will be 12 F-35s available on board at any one time. That leaves a lot of empty space on a four-acre deck. Meanwhile, the Italians will have roughly the same number of F-35s on their excellent (and cheaper) mini-carrier, the Cavour.
Here's a thought. Oil-rich Norway plans to buy 52 of the land version of the F-35. Which means Norway will probably have more F-35s than the RAF and Royal Navy. Forget Tehran: don't mess with Oslo.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/george-kerevan-no-happy-ending-in-sights-for-jump-jet-fairy-tale-1-2287275
Boeing and the U.S. Air Force completed the first manned flight of the QF-16
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., May 10, 2012 – The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and the U.S. Air Force completed the first manned flight of the QF-16 Full Scale Aerial Target (FSAT) on May 4 at Cecil Field in Jacksonville. The QF-16 took off at 3:05 p.m. Eastern time and climbed to an altitude of 41,000 feet during its 66-minute flight.
The Air Force awarded a multi-year contract to Boeing in March 2010 that represented Phase I of the initial engineering, manufacturing and development of the QF-16, with options to buy up to 126 FSATs.
"With this successful first flight of the QF-16, the Air Force, Boeing and our supplier-partners have laid the groundwork for the program to enter low-rate production in 2013 and make its first production delivery in 2014," said Torbjorn Sjogren, Boeing vice president, Global Maintenance and Upgrades.
The functional check flight of the F-16, under control of a Boeing test pilot, validated the basic aircraft performance with the QF-16 drone modification package installed. The additional hardware Boeing installs allows the QF-16 to fly in an unmanned mode while under the control of a ground-based control system such as the Gulf Range Drone Control System (GRDCS) at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., or the Drone Formation Control System (DFCS) at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), N.M. During the current test phase in Jacksonville, a GRDCS mobile trailer with portable transmission towers provides communications between the flight controller and other personnel on the ground and the QF-16 pilot.
"This was a tremendous milestone for the program and for Boeing because it signals our continued success as an off-Boeing platform support and sustainment provider," said Bob Insinna, Boeing QF-16 program manager.
The QF-16s will be a higher-performing aircraft than the QF-4 they replace and representative of fourth-generation targets. They will be flown manned or unmanned within a controlled range and equipped to evaluate how U.S. fighters and weapons will operate against potential adversaries.
Boeing will deliver six QF-16 test aircraft to Tyndall in October for additional testing over the Gulf Range. Following the successful conclusion of these tests, Boeing will support government flight testing from Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., over the WSMR complex.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2253
US Air Force works on next-generation aircraft engine
Washington, USA - "It takes longer to develop an engine that it does an airframe"
(WAPA) - The US Air Force has started work on the further develop next-generation turbine engine technology. This technology is called Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT).
"It is a follow-on programme to the ADVENT programme which is looking at the next generation of turbine engine technology. It is intended to be a competitive acquisition" said Janet Wolfenbarger, military deputy to the USAF acquisition chief.
This tender will be open to all bidders. The goal is to reduce fuel consumption by 25%, but it will also help the preservation of the US industrial base. The concept is to advance the technology to a point where it could be used on a next-generation fighter or bomber. Wolfenbarger also said that it is not an effort to create an alternative engine for the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter aircraft.
According to this programme, propulsion is the key to developing a next-generation tactical aircraft since it takes longer to develop an engine that it does an airframe.
It should be noted that the US Navy is very interested about this programme, most of all in relation of its future F/A-XX multi-role fighter.
Currently the ADVENT endeavor is being conducted by Rolls Royce and General Electric. (Avionews)
(2013)
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1140469&pagina_chiamante=index.php
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 11/05/2012 | 09:47 uur
US Air Force works on next-generation aircraft engine
(WAPA) - The US Air Force has started work on the further develop next-generation turbine engine technology. This technology is called Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT).
Currently the ADVENT endeavor is being conducted by Rolls Royce and General Electric. (Avionews)
Bijna te zot voor woorden, GE en RR waren heel ver met de ontwikkeling van de F-136 en wilden al ADVENT aanbieden als upgrade voor hun F136 motoren in de F-35.
Maar ........ de F136 motoren-ontwikkeling werd de nek omgedraaid door geen budget meer te geven, .... nee .. 1 type motor (F135 van PW) moest het worden.
En nu..... er komt budget voor de door-ontwikkeling van ADVENT voor de next-generation fighter (lees : F-35) .....
Wordt nu de ontwikkeling van de F136 met ADVENT weer opgestart ?? .... kansen voor RR en GE ?.... toch F136 motor in F-35 ?
The ADVENT program is one of several related development projects being pursued under the Air Force's Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (VAATE) program. After being announced in April 2007, Rolls-Royce and GE Aviation were awarded Phase I contracts in August 2007 to explore concepts, develop and test critical components, and begin preliminary designs of an engine.[1][3]
In October 2009, Rolls-Royce was awarded the Phase II contract to continue component testing and integrate the developed technologies into a technology demonstrator engine.[2] GE Aviation was also awarded funds to continue development of their technology demonstration core, which was unexpected as the ADVENT program had originally called for a single contractor to be selected for Phase II.[4]
Operational testing of the engine is expected to begin in 2013The ADVENT engine was originally targeted at the Air Force's 2018 Next-Generation Bomber, but uncertainty in that program has led Rolls-Royce (RR), one of the primary developers involved with the project, to predict that the ADVENT engine will be better suited for a potential 2020 engine upgrade for the F-35 Lightning II. RR, who is partnered with GE Aviation on the embattled F136 alternate engine for the F-35, has suggested that the ADVENT development contracts are all the more reason to continue the F136, as any engine upgrade from Pratt & Whitney (makers of the F135 engine currently used in the F-35) would have to be separately funded, either internally or to additional government costhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Technology
JSF: een knallend hoofdpijndossier
Weblog LondenArjen van der Horst11-5-2012 13:37
De JSF werd in 1993 geboren in de hoofden van defensiespecialisten die een opvolger zochten voor de F16. Toch duurt het waarschijnlijk tot 2023 voordat we de eerste toestellen in het Britse luchtruim zien. Niet alleen Nederland worstelt met het peperdure project, ook voor de Britten is de Joint Strike Fighter uitgegroeid tot een hoofdpijndossier. Een knallend hoofdpijndossier.
De JSF is een perfect voorbeeld hoe ingewikkeld en krankzinnig duur dit soort militaire ondernemingen zijn. En steevast lijken blunders en gestuntel een vast onderdeel te zijn van dit soort defensiecontracten. Het Britse JSF-project is zo nog complexer dan het Nederlandse. Den Haag hoeft enkel een opvolger te kiezen voor de F16. In Londen is de beslissing over het hypermoderne toestel onlosmakelijk verbonden met de bouw van twee vliegdekschepen en in zeker zin ook met de economische crisis.
De vorige Labour-regering onder Tony Blair koos voor de zogeheten jumpjet-variant van de JSF, die net als de Britse Harriers verticaal kan opstijgen. Het nadeel van deze versie is dat ze zwaarder weegt, minder ver kan vliegen en minder wapens met zich mee kan dragen. De pas aangetreden Cameron noemde dat besluit "een fout" en besloot de JSF te kiezen die op de reguliere manier landt en opstijgt en tot meer in staat is.
Dat besluit was mede ingegeven door de economische crisis. Het ministerie van Defensie had een gat van 38 miljard op haar begroting door geblunder met peperdure defensieprojecten tijdens de Blair-jaren. Het was in 2010 maar de vraag of de vliegdekschepen (die net als de JSF veel duurder blijken te zijn dan aanvankelijk begroot) afgebouwd zouden kunnen worden.
Cameron nam een bizar, maar misschien wel noodzakelijk besluit. Om de bouw van de nieuwe vliegdekschepen te kunnen financieren, werd het bestaande vliegdekschip Arc Royal en de bijbehorende Harrier-jets op de schroothoop gegooid. Het zou wel betekenen dat de Britten vliegdekschepen (het eerste is gereed in 2016) zouden krijgen zonder vliegtuigen. Immers, de JSF zou pas gereed zijn in 2023.
Om verdere kosten te besparen sloot Cameron een defensieverdrag met de Fransen zodat beide landen gebruik zouden maken van de nieuwe vliegdekschepen. Omdat de Franse geen jumpjet-toestellen gebruiken, moesten de vliegdekschepen een "cats & traps" krijgen, een katapultsysteem waarmee de vliegtuigen kunnen landen en opstijgen. Maar ook dat levert gigantische problemen op. Het aanpassen van de vliegdekschepen kost nu al 2 miljard pond, het drievoudige van wat oorspronkelijk was begroot.
Deze week maakte de minister van Defensie een pijnlijke U-bocht. De kosten van het cats & traps-systeem zijn zo uit de bocht gevlogen, dat ze alsnog kiezen voor de jumpjet-variant van de JSF, zoals de vorige Labour-regering dat oorspronkelijk besloten had.
Inmiddels zijn de Britten twee jaar verder en twee miljard pond armer. De koerswijziging heeft ook een ander gevolg: het lijkt nog onwaarschijnlijk dat de Fransen gebruik kunnen maken van de vliegdekschepen. Zo moddert dit project maar voort. Eén voorspelling over de JSF durf ik wel te maken. Verwacht meer 'onverwachte' kostenoverschrijdingen en vertragingen.
Bron: NOS
LM is positief over de voortgang (is ook logisch als leverancier)
F-35 Lightning II Flight Test Update
FORT WORTH, Texas, May 8, 2012 – Lockheed Martin's [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II flight test program continues to make progress during the first four months of 2012. In March, the program completed 123 test flights totaling 223 flight hours, setting a record for the most System Development and Demonstration (SDD) flights and flight hours for a single month.
During the time period, the SDD fleet surpassed the 15,000 total test point threshold, completing approximately 25 percent of the SDD program's entire requirement of more than 59,000 test points. Overall the F-35 test program remains ahead of the 2012 flight test plan, which calls for the accumulation of 1,001 test flights and 7,873 baseline test points as well as additional points beyond the original plan.
Through April 30, the program completed 373 flights against a plan of 281and achieved 2,810 test points – 2,307 of which were baseline points earned against a plan of 2,151. At Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., 30 local area orientation flights were completed totaling 39.5 flight hours as progress toward F-35 pilot training checkout continues.
Another aspect of flight testing is the progressive check out of the latest version of mission system software known as Block 2A. To date, more than 90 percent of Block 2A airborne software code is complete with more than 85 percent of that code currently being flight or lab tested. Block 2A flight test is being conducted at Edwards AFB and will continue through this year. Block 2A is scheduled for "ready for training" in the summer of 2013.
"The 2012 F-35 flight test program execution continues to build momentum," said Orlando Carvalho, F-35 executive vice president and general manager. "From flight envelope expansion to night refueling to external weapons testing, our flight test program is off to a good start this year. We are working to build on this success and deliver unprecedented 5th generation fighter performance capabilities – including radar-evading stealth, supersonic speed, extreme agility and the most comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history – to our Armed Forces and allies."
The F-35 program has accomplished many flight test, production and training milestones since Jan. 1:
On Jan. 17, demonstrating the ongoing maturation of the F-35 integrated sensor suite, AF-3, an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) test jet, completed the first low Distributed Aperture System (DAS) approach.
On Jan. 18, the first night flight in the history of the F-35 program was completed at Edwards AFB, Calif.
On Feb. 16, at Edwards AFB, Calif., AF-1, an F-35A CTOL test jet, flew the first external weapons test mission in F-35 program history.
On March 6, the 33d Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB, Fla., flew its first local F-35 Lightning II sortie, marking a major milestone.
On March 22, AF-4, an F-35A CTOL jet, completed the first night refueling mission when it successfully connected to an Air Force KC-135 tanker and received fuel through the F-35's boom receptacle.
On March 28, BF-4, an F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) test jet based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., completed the first F-35 flight with two unarmed air intercept missiles known as AIM-120 Instrumentation Measurement Vehicles (IMVs). The IMVs are used to measure environmental influences such as temperature, vibration and acoustics of the aircraft on the weapon to ensure they do not impact the weapon's ability to be carried and employed by the aircraft.
On April 1, the first F-35 Lightning II for the Netherlands rolled out of the F-35 production facility. The Netherlands will use this CTOL jet, known as AN-1, for training and operational tests for pilots and maintainers.
On April 5, the program completed in-flight refueling of an F-35B STOVL while configured with external weapons at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The mission tested the flying qualities of the aircraft while maneuvering with external weapons.
On April 10, two F-35A CTOLs from the 33d Fighter Wing assigned to Eglin AFB, Fla., completed the unit's first formation flight. The mission was part of a continuing process to validate pilot syllabus objectives in preparation for future training.
On April 11, an F-35A CTOL from the 33d Fighter Wing assigned to Eglin, AFB, Fla., completed the unit's first air-to-air refueling mission with a KC-135R Stratotanker.
On April 13, BK-1, the United Kingdom's first F-35 Lightning II production aircraft, flew its inaugural flight. The U.K. Ministry of Defence will use this short takeoff/vertical landing jet for training and operational tests at Eglin AFB, Fla., beginning later this year.
On April 18, for the first time, two F-35C Lightning II carrier variant test aircraft launched together and conducted formation flying at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. The mission tested flying qualities of the aircraft while taking off, landing and flying in formation for more than one hour.
On April 21, the program completed the first in-flight refueling of F-35A CTOL aircraft while configured with external weapons at Edwards AFB, Calif. The two-hour mission tested the flying qualities of the aircraft while maneuvering with external weapons.
Cumulative flight test activity totals for 2012 through April 30 are provided below:
F-35A CTOL jets have flown 164 times.
F-35B STOVL aircraft have completed 122 flights, 114 of which began with a short takeoff. Additionally, F-35B STOVL aircraft have conducted 49 vertical landings.
F-35C carrier variant (CV) jets have flown 87 times.
Cumulative flight test activity totals for the duration of the program through April 30 are provided below:
F-35A CTOL jets have flown 811 times.
F-35B STOVL aircraft have completed 711 flights, 533 of which began with a short takeoff. F-35B STOVL aircraft have also conducted 328 vertical landings.
F-35C CV jets have flown 279 times.
Since December 2006, F-35s have flown 2,066 times and accrued more than 3,000 cumulative flight hours. This total includes 91 flights from the original test aircraft, AA-1; 1,801 SDD test flights; and 174 production-model flights. For video highlights of the F-35 program, click here.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/may/120508ae_f-35_update-flight-test.html
(INDIA) Cabinet Clears Purchase of Trainer Aircraft Worth Rs 3000 Crore
(Source: Time of India; published May 11, 2012)
NEW DELHI --- The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on Thursday cleared the purchase of 75 basic trainer aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF). The IAF has been suffering from a crippling shortage of trainers since 2009, when its old basic trainer was grounded after a series of accidents that claimed 19 lives.
A senior official said the deal for the purchase of 75 Pilatus PC-7 Mk-II aircraft from Switzerland would cost around Rs 3,000 crore.
The decision comes in the face of "critical deficiency" in trainer aircraft - pointed out by the parliamentary standing committee on defence recently - and IAF's desperate need to initiate its cadets into flying with basic trainers.
Since July 2009, the IAF has been adopting an ad hoc method of teaching flying, initiating cadets into flying directly with intermediate trainer jet Kiran. Its basic trainer HPT-32 Deepak has been involved in at least 17 crashes killing 19 pilots, forcing the air force to ground the fleet in 2009.
The CCS decision comes a few days after the parliamentary standing committee pointed out that IAF had just 255 trainers (basic, intermediate and advanced), instead of the 434 that had been inducted into service.
The number of basic trainers purchased from Swiss firm Pilatus could further go up since the IAF has a requirement of 181 trainers. Under the present deal, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will produce 145 of these trainers under licence.
The Swiss firm emerged as the L1 (lowest bidder) in the competition several months ago, but the deal was stalled after Korean Aerospace Industries, which had fielded the KT-1 trainer, put up a strong fight, saying the Pilatus selection was flawed.
The Koreans alleged the Swiss proposal was incomplete and thus a violation of the procurement procedure. Both the Korean defence minister and ambassador to India wrote protest letters to the Indian government, besides the firm carrying out an aggressive media campaign against the Pilatus.
The first basic trainer would be inducted 15 months after the contract is signed, sources said. The Swiss are selling the aircraft under the condition that they would never be armed.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135146/indian-cabinet-approves-%24700m-purchase-of-pilatus-pc_7-trainers.html
Luke D Coffey: The Government made the right decision on the Joint Strike Fighter
Luke Coffey previously served as a Special Adviser to Liam Fox in the Ministry of Defence. Follow Luke on Twitter.
The Government made the right decision to change from the Carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) back to the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF. However, this is not because David Cameron and Liam Fox were both wrong when they agreed in 2010 that the Carrier variant of the JSF was better for the Royal Navy—which it is, but because the assumed cost of equipping the carriers with this variant has unreasonably increased out of control.
When the Coalition Government was formed in May 2010 it was no surprise that it would want to examine all the options for Britain's future aircraft carriers. During the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) a number of options were considered for the carrier programme, including the option of cancelling the programme altogether. Many supported this latter option. However, it was soon clear that the contracts signed by the Labour Government meant that cancelling the carriers would cost more than building them. Furthermore, as a maritime nation, Britain needed them. Cancelling them was not an option.
As clearly stated in the 2010 SDSR the Carrier variant of the JSF is a more capable aircraft. It has a longer range, it can carry a heavier payload if needed and it has a cheaper through-life operating cost. This is why the Carrier variant was chosen over STOVL. However, there was one catch with choosing the Carrier variant —catapults and arrestor gear, commonly known as "cats and traps", had to be first installed on the carrier.
During the SDSR process Ministers were told by MoD officials that the estimated cost for installing "cats and traps" on just one of the new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers was between £350m to £500m. Although installing "cats and traps" meant a slight delay to the carriers it seemed to be worth it. There was a view that for once decisions needed to be taken in the long-term interests of defence and not in the short-term interests of politics. The carriers will be in service for 50 years. To put this into the proper context, the last Captain of a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier has not yet even been born. Delaying by a few years to get the best capability that will span half a century seemed like the right thing to do. Some MoD officials even suggested that the savings made from the reduced through-life running cost of the Carrier variant meant that the "cats and traps" will pay for themselves overtime.
We now know that this decision was based on poor advice to Ministers. Only 12 months after the SDSR was published the estimated cost of installing "cats and traps" on one carrier had increased to £2 billion—more than the Foreign Office's annual operating budget. Sadly, I saw similar examples of this play out time and again whilst working in the MoD. Advice would come up to Ministers that would regularly change or simply be incorrect. This would make Ministers hesitant to make definitive statements on matters of policy for the fear that they would later be told that what they said was wrong. Many times, especially during the pressure cooker environment that preceded the SDSR's publication, officials would tell Ministers more of what they wanted to hear, instead of what they needed to hear. How else could you explain a cost estimate that increases by almost 300% in only 12 months?
There is a lot of discussion on how the change back to the STOVL variant will impact the interoperability with the U.S. or France. In practice it won't. The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) flies STOVL aircraft off their Assault Ships which, although not considered to be an aircraft carrier by American standards, is still larger than any European aircraft carrier currently in service. With the STOVL variant of the JSF there is still scope for UK-US interoperability and cooperation. Frankly, it hardly matters to the Pentagon what variant of the JSF the UK chooses as long as the UK stays committed to the JSF programme.
The concerns about French interoperability are even more tiresome. The rhetoric about interoperability with the French was largely window dressing for the 2010 UK-French Defence Treaty. After the recent election of Francois Hollande I suspect that UK-French defence cooperation will be placed on the backburner anyway. Yes, in theory, the Carrier variant would mean that a British plane could land on a French carrier and vice-versa but this would be the extent of the interoperability. In practice, with the UK flying JSF, and the French flying Rafale, it is not practical to operate two different types of fast jets from the same aircraft carrier for logistical reasons.
Due to poor advice from a few officials inside the Department the MoD will pay a reputational price in the eyes of the public while the Ministers will pay a political price at the Dispatch Box. It is likely that the officials in the Department who were actually behind this debacle will pay no price at all. Those who failed to estimate the actual cost of "cats and traps" to the tune of £2 billion, a level of incompetence that has forced a Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box, should be at least removed from their positions, if not fired.
Nevertheless, Ministers can delegate authority but not responsibility. Regardless of the incorrect estimates that were given by officials, Ministers are still responsible for what goes good and bad inside their Department. This is why seeing Philip Hammond at the Dispatch Box taking responsibility for a problem, and offering a solution to fix it, was so refreshing. If his Labour predecessors did the same when they were in power the MoD wouldn't be in the poor financial state in which it finds itself today.
Labour's biggest complaint seems to be that the Government has wasted £50 million by changing the variant of JSF. What Labour doesn't tell you is that the UK spends £50 million every 9 hours on debt interest payments as a result of the economic incompetence of Gordon Brown's Government—a Government in which the Shadow Defence Secretary, Jim Murphy, was proudly a member.
The STOVL variant of JSF may not be as capable as the Carrier variant but it is better to have a good capability than no capability. Flying a fifth-generation fighter, regardless of what variant it might be, will place the UK in the Premier League of air power capability—ahead of both Russia and China.
Beyond the perceived embarrassment of the so called "u-turn" we should judge the Government on what it is actually doing. It is ensuring that two carriers, instead of one, could be operational; that the in-service dates for these carriers are brought forward by almost half a decade; that the UK will operate some of the most advanced fast jets in the history of warfare; and that the British taxpayer will save almost £2 billion in the process.
If the Opposition, which is up to its eyeballs in hypocrisy after its habitual mismanagement of the carrier programme whilst in Government, does not agree with the Government's decision then what are they proposing instead? The answer is nothing. The Opposition lacks a strategy, a plan and all credibility on defence.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2012/05/luke-d-coffey-the-government-made-the-right-decision-on-the-joint-strike-fighter.html
U.S. Navy Solicits Concepts for Super Hornet Successor
by Bill Carey
May 11, 2012, 1:58 PM
The U.S. Navy has started the process of eventually replacing its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter and the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare derivative. On April 13, the service issued a request for information (RFI) seeking industry concepts for the F/A-XX fighter to replace Super Hornets and Growlers around 2030.
The RFI specifies a multi-role fighter capable of operating from nuclear-powered Nimitz- and Ford-class aircraft carriers "in an anti-access/area denied" operational environment. Air warfare, strike and surface warfare will be primary missions, but concepts should also include capability for tactical reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition (RSTA) and airborne electronic attack (AEA) roles, according to the Navy. "Concepts that are derived from legacy aircraft, 'clean sheet' new design aircraft, as well as innovative technology concepts specifically tailored for the operational context are all relevant," the RFI states.
The F/A-XX is described as being complementary to the Navy's F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) carrier variant and an unmanned persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft with precision strike capability. At the Navy League conference in mid-April, Capt. Frank Morley, F/A-18 and EA-18G program manager, said the F/A-XX is not intended as a "hedge" against ongoing problems with the F-35 program, nor is the future aircraft rendered unnecessary by the JSF. He noted that Super Hornets will be close to 20 years older than the first operational F-35s. "In the 2020-2030 time frame we intend to be a Super Hornet-JSF fleet, and then those Super Hornets are going to be aging out," he said. "So we're going to need to be a JSF and 'something else' fleet, and that something else is the F/A-XX."
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-05-11/us-navy-solicits-concepts-super-hornet-successor
IN FOCUS: US Navy Next Generation Jammer proceeds, but F-35 integration deferred indefinitely
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
The US Navy is moving full-steam ahead on its Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) pod development effort, but integration onto the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has been deferred indefinitely.
Instead, the USN is focusing on getting the NGJ developed and fielded onto the Boeing EA-18G Growler by 2020. The service expects the EA-18G will be in service until at least the mid-2030s. The NGJ is expected to replace the current AN/ALQ-99 jamming pods found on the Growler and the aging Northrop Grumman EA-6B Prowler.
At present, the USN hopes to have a final request for proposal (RfP) issued for the programme by the end of June. The USN recently issued a draft RfP earlier in April as it prepares to move the NGJ from a technology maturation effort into a full-scale developmental programme.
Captain John Green, the USN programme manager for airborne electronic attack, says that the NGJ effort is a little unusual in that there is usually an analysis of alternatives (AoA) prior to a Milestone A decision to start an acquisitions programme. However, on the NGJ endeavor, various technology maturation efforts started before that formal decision point because those technologies were not yet sufficiently mature.
The USN is currently undertaking a 33-month technology maturation effort with contracts issued to four companies: BAE Systems, ITT Exelis, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. But that phase is coming to a close and a full-scale prototype effort will soon be underway.
"We expect to release the final RfP for this in late June," Green says. The Pentagon should approve the document by mid-June, he adds.
Proposals from would-be vendors should be in by August after which the USN will conduct a source selection. Only one vendor will be picked for the technology development phase-which will involve building a full-scale prototype and a preliminary design. That contact will be awarded next June, Green says. "This is a kinda a winner-take-all type of competition we're going into," he adds.
The technology demonstration contract will run for 22 months from June 2013 to about April or May of 2015, Green says. After that, the effort will transition into a "sole-source" engineering, manufacturing, development (EMD) phase. That EMD contract will cover integration of the NGJ into the EA-18G in addition to the traditional milestones of critical design review (CDR) and building developmental test articles.
The EMD phase should run for about four years through 2019, Green says. The programme will then go into operational test late in 2019 or early 2020. Initial operational capability should happen in 2020.
The current focus for the NGJ programme is to develop a mid-band jammer, Green says. Mid-band is the most urgent need for the USN because most of the threats are found in that range. There is a relatively new and very capable low-band pod that is currently in production, Green says, which means that it does not need to be replaced immediately. Moreover, there are upgrades planned for that low-band jammer pod to keep it relevant to current and anticipated threat environment, he adds.
"The really urgent need is in the mid-band," Green says. "Ultimately, we'll have to look at upgrading the low-band and also add a high-band capability."
Green says he believes that the mid-band jammer will have to be a two-pod solution to allow for 360® coverage around the aircraft. There will be one pod on each side of the jet, not unlike the current system. However, the USN had originally wanted a single-pod solution.
The NJG will use active electronically scanned arrays (AESA) for its jamming pods. Unlike current generation systems which use gallium arsenide-based (GaAs) transmit/receive modules in those AESA antennas, the NGJ will use next-generation Gallium Nitride (GaN) chips.
"It blows my mind," Green says. "It is incredible the work that's been done over the last five or six years in GaN by the industry."
The new GaN chips could offer a better than ten-fold performance increase over the GaAs-based hardware-that includes superior handling of wide frequency bands.
"It's at least that," Green says. "We're seeing some very very good numbers."
Given the sheer power of the system, there is potential for the hardware to provide a powerful surveillance capability. The USN is examining the possibilities, but there would be limitations imposed by the shape and size of the pods.
The USN has dropped an earlier supersonic requirement for the new NGJ pod because the performance penalty in other areas of the flight envelop are too great. The current ALQ-99 pods are limited to Mach 0.95 even through the Super Hornet-derived E/A-18G is a supersonic airframe. The new NGJ pod will probably be optimized for subsonic speeds around Mach 0.9 or below.
"The reality of it is that we don't often have to go above 0.85 or 0.9," Green says. "It's not an optimum environment for what these aircraft do."
It is still an open question as to whether the NGJ will be integrated onto the F-35. Analysis has shown that it will be costly to integrate the new pods onto the stealthy fifth-generation jet, Green says. "Some of the preliminary numbers that we had for integration on the F-35-these were not small numbers," he says. "With the budget challenges that we have, it was decided that we would really take a singular approach right now with the Growler."
It will be several years before the USN takes another look at integrating the NGJ onto the F-35, Green says. That is because of the sheer cost of integration. In fact, when that might happen is anyone's guess.
"Depending upon the capacity that we need in airborne electronic attack, it is conceivable that we would stay with the Growler and not even look at a second platform until late into the next decade," Green says.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is looking at alternative ways of conducting the electronic warfare mission. One of those might involve dispersed pieces of the NGJ pods flying on unmanned aircraft or other platforms which are commanded via data-links, Green says. Those dispersed jamming pods could be controlled from the ground or potentially from a Growler.
An early example of that concept can be found in the guise of the US Marine Corps' Intrepid Tiger II jamming pod that was developed in-house at the Naval Air Systems Command, Green says. The Intrepid Tiger II is controlled via data-links by controllers on the ground. That pod will be deploying to Afghanistan this summer.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-us-navy-next-generation-jammer-proceeds-but-f-35-integration-deferred-indefinitely-371742/
Is the Navy's Sixth-Generation F/A-XX Fighter Gaining Momentum?
Written by: Robert F. Dorr on May 6, 2012
Categories: Aviation, Naval
Boeing concept rendering of a proposal for the F/A-XX. While the Navy has stated it is looking for much-improved kinematics over the Super Hornet and F-35C, the tailless cropped delta planform seems optimized for stealth. Boeing imagery
Looking to its long-term fighter needs, the U.S. Navy in April announced a request for information (RFI) for what it calls the F/A-XX, a future program to replace the carrier-based Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler in the 2030s. Issuing an RFI is a preliminary step. The sea service doesn't have funds for F/A-XX currently, nor is it requesting money in the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.
Picking up on a term that began as a marketing tool for planemaker Lockheed Martin, the Navy calls F/A-XX a "sixth generation" fighter. The term "fifth generation" was coined for the Air Force's F-22 Raptor and the multi-service F-35A/B/C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Some observers say the terminology is misleading because aircraft typically identified as "fourth generation," such as the Super Hornet in some cases have capabilities nearly as great as those labeled as being of later vintage.
The Navy envisions an ultra high-tech fighter capable of operating from Nimitz- and Ford-class aircraft carriers and complementing the F-35C and a yet unnamed unmanned aircraft system (probably based on the Boeing Phantom Ray or the Northrop Grumman X-47B) in providing air superiority and precision strike capability.
Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the Naval Air Systems Command's program manager for tactical aviation, told attendees of the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space exposition on April 17 that the Navy wants "far greater kinematic performance and greater range" in the F/A-XX than in current fighters.
The Navy wants the new aircraft to attain initial operational capability in 2030 when its earliest Super Hornets reach their airframe fatigue life of 9,000 hours. The next step after an RFI is usually an analysis of alternatives (AOA) followed much later by a request for proposals (RFP). Both require funding not likely to be available soon.
Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing (which will run out of Super Hornet and F-15 Eagle orders before the target date) are working on fighter designs that could be compatible with an F/A-XX requirement. At the Navy League event, Boeing demonstrated a scale model of a possible new fighter with a modified delta wing, tailless configuration and internal weapons bays.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/is-the-navys-6th-generation-fa-xx-fighter-gaining-momentum/
mooi toestel.
(https://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FFA-XX.jpg&hash=e22632cd8c73262db33c990ab6635a1b4c448d5f)
Citaat van: Ace1 op 13/05/2012 | 19:54 uur
mooi toestel.
Zeker!
Als deze het levenslicht ziet en operationeel inzetbaar is rond 2030 dan moet deze kist complementair zijn aan de F35C en dat zal absoluut ten koste gaan van het verkochte aantal JSF's, immers de F35C is LM zijn optie ter vervanging van de F18E
De 6e generatie kist (what's in the name) die naar verluid op de tekentafel staat bij LM is bedoeld als F22 vervanger (voor zover nu bij mij bekend).
Deze ontwikkeling(en) sterken mijn vermoeden dat de JSF uiteindelijk een heel duur interim avontuur, i.i.g. voor de USN, zal blijken te zijn (m.u.v. de F35B) en rond 2035/40 volledig achterhaald zal zijn.
The F-35 Shows Why the Pentagon Deserves a Smaller Budget
May 10, 2012
Chief Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) Kristopher Smith gives the thumbs up for pilot Lt. Col. Fred Schenk to lift an F-35B Lightning II off the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1).
Let the scaremongering begin.
Every time the Pentagon budget is vulnerable to cuts, we hear about the huge risks that would ensue. Defense jobs would get cut, depressing the economy. American military technology would fall behind. Terrorists would get a free hand. China would sneak up on us.
[Obama vows to veto DoD budget protections.]
So with $55 billion due to be cut from the Pentagon's budget next year, defenders of the military-industrial complex are once again warning of doom descending on America.
But it's the Pentagon's own wasteful spending that's a much bigger threat. Pentagon procurement has become so convoluted and dominated by lobbyists that billion-dollar weapon systems are commissioned a decade or two before they're actually fielded. Costs always rise, whether the weapon is relevant or not. Weapons are rarely junked, even when threats change—as they clearly did after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Instead, favored programs are merely reconfigured and assigned new capabilities, raising costs even more.
The F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, the Pentagon's biggest procurement program ever, is the poster child for the kind of wanton spending the nation can no longer afford. The F-35, built by Lockheed Martin, got its start in the early 1990s, with the concept for a stealthy jet that the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps could all use, theoretically making it cheaper than a trio of different jets unique to each service.
[See 6 reasons America will rebound.]
It hasn't worked out that way. The first official plan, in 2001, called for 2,866 jets costing a total of $233 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office. The latest plan cuts production to 2,457 jets, yet the cost has risen to $397 billion. The cost per aircraft has doubled, from $81 million to $162 million, and that's without accounting for 10 years of inflation.
Budget analyst Winslow Wheeler—who calls the F-35 "the jet that ate the Pentagon"—argues that the total life-cycle cost of the program, including funds to operate and support the jet, could total a stunning $1.5 trillion or higher, which is more than the annual GDP of Spain.
[See why a shrinking government is bad news.]
The Pentagon obviously needs capable fighter jets, along with modern ships, helicopters, and ground vehicles, cutting-edge intelligence-gathering technology, highly trained troops, and a rigorous support-system for veterans. But the time has long passed when we could afford the best of everything, cost be damned. As Wheeler reports in Foreign Policy, the F-35 became an unaffordable boondoggle because defense officials, abetted by members of Congress, insisted that the plane do practically everything: fight other jets, drop bombs, fly supersonic, have enclosed bomb bays for stealth, and come in variants able to land on aircraft carriers, unimproved airfields in the bush and conventional runways. What, no corkscrew?
This is what happens when the Pentagon gets virtually unlimited sums to build the world's most amazing toys. The Russians and Chinese must be happy to let us go broke building Cold War-style monstrosities, while they bone up on cyberwar and become experts at economic espionage.
Pentagon defenders point out that spending on national security is fairly modest these days relative to the size of the economy. During the Vietnam War, for instance, national-security spending totaled about 9.4 percent of GDP, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During the 1980s, it was around 6 percent. Today, it's just 4.3 percent, and that includes spending on the war in Afghanistan and the rump operation in Iraq.
But America wasn't addicted to borrowing back then. The federal debt was only 38 percent of GDP at the end of the 1960s and 56 percent at the end of the 1980s. This year, the national debt will eclipse more than 100 percent of GDP, and keep growing. To continue building weapons like the F-35, meant to protect us against potential future enemies such as the Chinese, we'd basically be borrowing from lenders such as . . . the Chinese.
Paying down the national debt is eventually going to require tax increases on most Americans, along with cuts in popular programs like Medicare and Social Security. Most credible plans for fixing the nation's finances say it's imperative to rein in or simply kill extravagant programs like the F-35. Meanwhile, the biggest victories in the war on terror come when intelligence agents infiltrate the bad guys, steal their secrets and identify the location of their leaders—while an expendable, unmanned drone delivers a missile. No F-35 needed.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/05/10/the-f-35-shows-why-the-pentagon-deserves-a-smaller-budget
Why the Joint Strike Fighter is a calamity in progress
Winslow Wheeler
May 10, 2012
The United States is making a gigantic investment in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, billed by its advocates as the next - by their count the fifth - generation of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat aircraft.
Claimed to be near invisible to radar and able to dominate any future battlefield, the F-35 will replace most of the air-combat aircraft in the inventories of the US Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and at least nine foreign allies (including Australia), and it will be in those inventories for the next 55 years.
It's no secret, however, that the program - the most expensive in American history - is a calamity.
Last month, we learned that the Pentagon has increased the price tag for the F-35 by another $US289 million - just the latest in a long string of cost increases - and that the program is expected to account for a whopping 38 per cent of Pentagon procurement for defence programs, assuming its cost will grow no more.
How bad is it? A review of the F-35's cost, schedule, and performance - three essential measures of any Pentagon program - shows the problems are fundamental and still growing.
First, with regard to cost, the F-35 is simply unaffordable. Although the plane was originally billed as a low-cost solution, major cost increases have plagued the program throughout the last decade.
Last year, Pentagon leadership told Congress the acquisition price had increased another 16 per cent, from $US328.3 billion to $US379.4 billion for the 2457 aircraft to be bought. Not to worry, however - they pledged to finally reverse the growth.
The result? This February, the price increased another 4 per cent to $US395.7 billion and then even further in April. Don't expect the cost overruns to end there: The test program is only 20 per cent complete, the Government Accountability Office has reported, and the toughest tests are yet to come.
Overall, the program's cost has grown 75 per cent from its original 2001 estimate of $US226.5 billion - and that was for a larger buy of 2866 aircraft.
Hundreds of F-35s will be built before 2019, when initial testing is complete. The additional cost to engineer modifications to fix the inevitable deficiencies that will be uncovered is unknown, but it is sure to exceed the $534 million already known from tests so far.
The total program unit cost for each individual F-35, now at $US161 million, is only a temporary plateau. Expect yet another increase in early 2013, when a new round of budget restrictions is sure to hit the Pentagon, and the F-35 will take more hits in the form of reducing the numbers to be bought, thereby increasing the unit cost of each plane.
A final note on expense: The F-35 will actually cost multiples of the $US395.7 billion cited above. That is the current estimate only to acquire it, not the full life-cycle cost to operate it.
The current appraisal for operations and support is $US1.1 trillion - making for a grand total of $US1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain.
And that estimate is wildly optimistic: It assumes the F-35 will only be 42 per cent more expensive to operate than an F-16, but the F-35 is much more complex.
The only other "fifth generation" aircraft, the F-22 from the same manufacturer, is in some respects less complex than the F-35, but in 2010, it cost 300 per cent more to operate per hour than the F-16. To be very conservative, expect the F-35 to be twice the operating and support cost of the F-16.
Already unaffordable, the F-35's price is headed in one direction - due north.
Running behind schedule
The F-35 isn't only expensive - it's way behind schedule. The first plan was to have an initial batch of F-35s available for combat in 2010. Then first deployment was to be 2012. More recently, the military services have said the deployment date is "to be determined." A new target date of 2019 has been informally suggested in testimony - almost 10 years late.
If the F-35's performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications - and it will not - it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable.
In discussing the F-35 with aviation and acquisition experts - some responsible for highly successful aircraft such as the F-16 and the A-10, and others with decades of experience inside the Pentagon and years of direct observation of the F-35's early history - I learned that the F-35's problems are built into its very DNA.
The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation.
It emerged as a proposal for a very short takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft (known as "STOVL") that would also be supersonic. This required an airframe design that - simultaneously - wanted to be short, even stumpy, and single-engine (STOVL), and also sleek, long, and with lots of excess power, usually with twin engines.
President Bill Clinton's Pentagon bogged down the already compromised design concept further by adding the requirement that it should be a multirole aircraft - both an air-to-air fighter and a bomber.
This required more difficult tradeoffs between agility and low weight, and the characteristics of an airframe optimised to carry heavy loads. Clinton-era officials also layered on "stealth," imposing additional aerodynamic shape requirements and maintenance-intensive skin coatings to reduce radar reflections.
They also added two separate weapons bays, which increase permanent weight and drag, to hide onboard missiles and bombs from radars. On top of all that, they made it multiservice, requiring still more tradeoffs to accommodate more differing, but exacting, needs of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
Finally, again during the Clinton administration, the advocates composed a highly "concurrent" acquisition strategy. That meant hundreds of copies of the F-35 would be produced, and the financial and political commitments would be made, before the test results showed just what was being bought.
Virtual flying piano
This grotesquely unpromising plan has already resulted in multitudes of problems - and 80 per cent of the flight testing remains.
A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat.
Worse yet, it won't be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission - or just as importantly, to train pilots - because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability.
The aircraft most like the F-35, the F-22, was able to get into the air on average for only 15 hours per month in 2010 when it was fully operational. (In 2011, the F-22 was grounded for almost five months and flew even less.)
This mediocrity is not overcome by the F-35's "fifth-generation" characteristics, the most prominent of which is its "stealth." Despite what many believe, "stealth" is not invisibility to radar; it is limited-detection ranges against some radar types at some angles.
Put another way, certain radars, some of them quite antiquated, can see "stealthy" aircraft at quite long ranges, and even the susceptible radars can see the F-35 at certain angles. The ultimate demonstration of this shortcoming occurred in the 1999 Kosovo war, when 1960s vintage Soviet radar and missile equipment shot down a "stealthy" F-117 bomber and severely damaged a second.
The bottom line: The F-35 is not the wonder its advocates claim. It is a gigantic performance disappointment, and in some respects a step backward. The problems, integral to the design, cannot be fixed without starting from a clean sheet of paper.
It's time to face the facts: The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America's air forces deserve a much better aircraft, and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one.
The dustbin awaits.
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/why-the-joint-strike-fighter-is-a-calamity-in-progress-20120509-1ycjt.html#ixzz1upTDtv88
Samenvatting: Zwitserse vliegers ontevreden over prestatie Gripen NG testvliegtuig op gebied van snelheid, brandstofcapaciteit. De aanpassingen die nodig zijn om aan hun eigen te voldoen komen erop neer dat er een eigenlijk een heel nieuw vliegtuig gebouwd moet worden (moet verlengd worden om kist in balans te houden gezien de nieuwe radar in de neus (nog niet uitontwikkeld) te zwaar is. Ministerie van Defensie en politiek zegt dat er weinig aan de hand is.
Het complete (Duitstalige) verslag is te lezen via onderstaande bron:
http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/home/artikel-detailseite/?newsid=217497
Oldenhave,
In beginsel worden op het forum alleen Nederlands- en Engelstalige artikelen geplaatst. Anderstalig louter d.m.v. een verwijzing met een eigen toelichting.
Rob
Forumbeheerder
Citaat van: Oldenhave op 14/05/2012 | 14:14 uur
Samenvatting: Zwitserse vliegers ontevreden over prestatie Gripen NG testvliegtuig op gebied van snelheid, brandstofcapaciteit. De aanpassingen die nodig zijn om aan hun eigen te voldoen komen erop neer dat er een eigenlijk een heel nieuw vliegtuig gebouwd moet worden (moet verlengd worden om kist in balans te houden gezien de nieuwe radar in de neus (nog niet uitontwikkeld) te zwaar is. Ministerie van Defensie en politiek zegt dat er weinig aan de hand is.
Het stuk laat wel zien dat ook de Gripen E/F (NG) nog lang niet toe is aan serieproductie en dat deze kist wellicht ook zo haar problemen kent om mee te kunnen komen in de wereld van de alternatieven.
Er zijn niet veel alles kunners, die ook na 2030, nog een rol kunnen spelen en enigsins betaalbaar zijn, dan vrees ik toch voor een cursus Frans of de JSF.
Upgrading Air Force F-16 Fighters: Let's Keep It Light
(Source: Lexington Institute; issued May 11, 2012)
As a result of repeated restructurings, the F-35 fighter program is now expected to deliver only about a quarter of the production aircraft originally planned by 2017 -- roughly 400 planes rather than 1,600. This presents a problem for the U.S. Air Force, which is destined to receive most of the domestic F-35s.
Production of the companion F-22 fighter was capped at barely half of the service's operational objective by former defense secretary Robert Gates, and legacy fighters in the fleet weren't modernized in the expectation that F-35s would soon arrive.
Since it isn't feasible to restart the F-22 line, the service has opted to modernize its legacy F-15s and F-16s by introducing structural improvements to aging airframes and installing new electronic equipment. Arguably the most important piece of new equipment needed is a radar that can perform more functions without having to be physically rotated. It turns out moving parts are just as hard to maintain in a fighter jet as they are in Chrysler 300. So the Air Force plans to buy an "active electronically scanned array" (AESA), which is engineering jargon for a radar that is steered by shifting the beam rather than physically moving the face of the sensor.
AESA radars are electronic marvels; with the right processors, software and displays, they can do all sorts of things that the existing radars in legacy fighters can't. Putting one in a 15-year-old F-16 will keep it operationally relevant for many years to come -- which is what apparently will be needed at the rate the F-35 program is progressing. However, there isn't anything that can be done to an F-16 that will make it genuinely stealthy the way the F-35 or F-22 are, so the Air Force needs to be realistic about what it is trying to achieve with F-16 upgrades. Basically, it is buying a bridge capability to the next generation of fighters. That bridge may need to extend two decades into the future, but the important point is to buy it quickly rather than wasting a lot of time and money trying to make it what it can never be -- the operational equivalent of an F-35.
The bottom line is that Air Force planners need to settle on a reasonable set of performance specs for the F-16's new radar, and then pick the lowest-price, technically acceptable solution. This is not a budget environment in which optimization of all performance parameters -- "gold-plating" in popular parlance -- makes sense. The Air Force should identify its basic needs for an upgraded F-16 and then find the most affordable solution.
If it levies too many nice-to-have requirements on the upgrade, it will become very expensive and not reach warfighters in a timely fashion. Let's keep in mind that the point of upgrading the radars on legacy F-16s is to build a bridge to the next generation of fighters, not a barrier that gets in the way of funding F-35.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135183/keep-the-f_16-radar-upgrade-light%2C-fast.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/05/2012 | 14:26 uur
Citaat van: Oldenhave op 14/05/2012 | 14:14 uur
Samenvatting: Zwitserse vliegers ontevreden over prestatie Gripen NG testvliegtuig op gebied van snelheid, brandstofcapaciteit. De aanpassingen die nodig zijn om aan hun eigen te voldoen komen erop neer dat er een eigenlijk een heel nieuw vliegtuig gebouwd moet worden (moet verlengd worden om kist in balans te houden gezien de nieuwe radar in de neus (nog niet uitontwikkeld) te zwaar is. Ministerie van Defensie en politiek zegt dat er weinig aan de hand is.
Het stuk laat wel zien dat ook de Gripen E/F (NG) nog lang niet toe is aan serieproductie en dat deze kist wellicht ook zo haar problemen kent om mee te kunnen komen in de wereld van de alternatieven.
Er zijn niet veel alles kunners, die ook na 2030, nog een rol kunnen spelen en enigsins betaalbaar zijn, dan vrees ik toch voor een cursus Frans of de JSF.
Op zich verontrustend nieuws. Aan de andere kant, deze krant heeft nog geen enkele keer positef nieuws over de Gripen NG geuit. Het komt dus niet bepaald objectief over. Net zoals veel Franstalige kranten die bij voorbaat de voorkeur hebben voor de Rafale.
Zo vind ik het vreemd dat er hier uitspraken worden gedaan over de Radar. Terwijl de nieuwe AESA Radar nog ingebouwd moet worden.
http://www.saabgroup.com/de/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-fuer-die-Schweiz/Updates-der-Kampagne/ (http://www.saabgroup.com/de/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-fuer-die-Schweiz/Updates-der-Kampagne/)
CitaatOn 30 November last year the Federal Council selected Gripen E/F as the preferred candidate to replace the Swiss Air Force's ageing fleet of Northrop F-5E/F Tiger. The Swiss Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports (DDPS) was commissioned to start discussions with Saab and the Swedish Government to optimize Saab's offer. The negotiations continue according to plan and the test flights in Sweden are part of the on-going process.
The three day programme, conducted between 2-4 May, included simulator training and four test flights. The test flights focused on air defense and air policing mission profiles with different weapon configurations, which included IRIS-T as well as both METEOR and AMRAAM.
"We tested the flight performance simulating an operational air defense mission profile.The flight was packed with test points. We were able to perform them all. A successful flight", Lt Col Fabio Antognini, Swiss Air Force
"We performed flight performance tests using an air policing scenario. We simulated a quick reaction alert and a maximum performance intercept to high altitude and supersonic speed. We tested the engine in the entire envelope and are pleased with the results." says Bernhard Berset, Chief Test Pilot at Armasuisse.
The Gripen E/F test programme is running according to plan. In the upcoming fourth phase of testing, Saab continues to integrate new leading-edge technologies which includes further enhancement of the avionics and displays. The radar system will also be further enhanced through the re-installation of a newer version of the AESA radar. The previous test phases have focused on areas such as flight handling, aerodynamics, performance improvements including the new GE F414G engine and increased weapon loads as well as the introduction of new sensors and new avionics in the aircraft.
"The co-operation between the two teams has been truly fantastic. We conducted four test flights with the Gripen E/F test aircraft, which performed, as ever, perfectly. We have really shown the growing capabilities of this aircraft and we demonstrated everything requested, including increased performance, handling and endurance," says Richard Ljungberg, Chief Test Pilot, Saab.
En volgens het Zwitserse ministerie:
CitaatTestflüge mit dem Gripen in Schweden
04.05.2012
Ein Team von Spezialisten der Luftwaffe und armasuisse absolvierte vom 2. bis 4. Mai 2012 in Linköping/Schweden Testflüge mit dem Gripen F Demonstrator. Die insgesamt vier Flüge mit dem Doppelsitzer dienten der Verifikation der Beurteilung des Gripen E/F und dem Risikoabbau der Weiterentwicklung des Flugzeuges. Alle Testflüge konnten durchgeführt werden.
Mit der vom Bundesrat am 30. November 2011 gefällten Typenwahl wurde ein wichtiger Meilenstein in der Beschaffung eines neuen Kampfflugzeugs für die Schweizer Luftwaffe erreicht. In der Folge wurde das VBS durch den Bundesrat beauftragt, die Vorbereitung der Beschaffung des Gripen an die Hand zu nehmen. Innerhalb des VBS wird diese Aufgabe durch ein sogenanntes Integriertes Projektteam (IPT) unter der Leitung der armasuisse mit Vertretern der Luftwaffe sowie weiteren VBS-Stellen wahrgenommen.
Parallel zu den laufenden Verhandlungen mit der schwedischen Regierung zur Optimierung der Beschaffung finden auf der fachtechnischen Arbeitsstufe intensive Gespräche zwischen den involvierten Partnern in Schweden und der Schweiz statt. Es ist vorgesehen, bis Ende des zweiten Quartals 2012 die Details der gemeinsame Beschaffung des Gripen durch Schweden und die Schweiz auf fachtechnischer Ebene zu regeln.
Status der Beschaffungsvorbereitung
Wie bei komplexen Beschaffungen üblich wird der Verlauf eines Projektes bei der Industrie durch das IPT intensiv und genau verfolgt. Dieses Begleiten der Arbeiten dient der Verifikation der Beurteilung des Gripen E/F und dem Risikoabbau der Weiterentwicklung des Gripen Modells C/D zum Modell E/F.
Vor diesem Hintergrund fanden nun zum ersten Mal Testflüge mit dem Gripen F Demonstrator bei der Herstellerfirma Saab in Schweden statt. Ein kleines Team bestehend aus Piloten und Flugversuchsingenieuren der Luftwaffe und armasuisse führte in enger Zusammenarbeit mit dem Hersteller eine Reihe von Verifikationsflügen durch.
Testprogramm und Flüge
Das dreitägige Programm umfasste die beiden Elemente ,,Simulatortraining" sowie ,,Testflüge". Während am ersten Tag die beiden Piloten ihre Kenntnisse über den Gripen im Simulator auffrischten und sich insbesondere auch mit den neuen Fähigkeiten des Gripen F Demonstrators vertraut machten, dienten die Flüge der folgenden zwei Tage der Verifikation der erwähnten Beurteilung des Gripen E/F sowie dem Risikoabbau für die vorgesehene Beschaffung. Um die Tests möglichst realistisch durchzuführen, wurden sie in verschiedene Einsatzszenarien, wie sie in der Schweiz denkbar sind, eingebettet. Dazu zählen je zwei Flüge mit dem Einsatzprofil Luftverteidigung und Luftpolizei. Die Einsätze fanden in unterschiedlichen Waffenkonfigurationen und mit Unterstützung durch Zielflugzeuge statt.
Der Ausgangspunkt für die Testflüge war der Flughafen Linköping in Schweden. Die verschiedenen Testflüge fanden hauptsächlich über der Ostsee zwischen Meereshöhe und 12'000 Meter über Meer statt.
Alle Testflüge konnten erfolgreich durchgeführt werden.
Gripen F Demonstrator
Bei dem durch die Schweizer Piloten in Schweden geflogenen Gripen F Demonstrator handelt es sich um einen Zwischenschritt von Modell C/D zum Modell E/F. Der auf der Basis eines Gripen D gebaute Doppelsitzer hat seinen Erstflug am 27. Mai 2008 absolviert und absolvierte seither mehr als 200 Flugstunden. Der Demonstrator dient als Plattform für die Erprobung von Teilsystemen des Gripen E/F.
Der Gripen F Demonstrator ist mit dem Triebwerk General Electric F414G ausgerüstet, hat einen vergrösserten internen Treibstofftank, Teile der neuen Avionik (Cockpit), zwei zusätzliche Waffenstationen unter dem Rumpf sowie ein neu angeordnetes Hauptfahrwerk.
Unterschiede zwischen Gripen C/D und E/F
Die wichtigsten Unterschiede zwischen dem von der Schweiz für die Beschaffung gewählten Gripen E/F zu dem 2008 in der Schweiz erprobten Gripen D sind:
Leistungsstärkeres Triebwerk
Mehr interner Treibstoff
Neues Radar modernster Technologie (AESA/Active Electronically Scanned Array)
Infrarot Zielsuch- und Verfolgungssensor (passiv)
Neue Avionik, inklusive Cockpit
Neues System für die Elektronische Kriegsführung (EKF)
Zwei zusätzliche Waffenstationen
Neues Fahrwerk
Die nächsten Schritte
Im Sommer 2012 wird das neue AESA Radar eingebaut und vom Hersteller Saab ersten Tests unterzogen. Die Verfikation durch das Schweizer Testteam ist für die 2. Hälfte 2012 geplant.
Adresse für Rückfragen:
Kaj-Gunnar Sievert
Leiter Kommunikation armasuisse
+41 79 593 27 37
Herausgeber:
Eidgenössisches Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport
Armasuisse
Bereich Verteidigung
Teilstreitkraft Luftwaffe
Für Fragen zu dieser Seite: Kommunikation VBS
Zuletzt aktualisiert am: 08.05.2012
http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/documentation/news/news_detail.44427.nsb.html (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/documentation/news/news_detail.44427.nsb.html)
Ik zou dus niet te vroeg oordelen. Bedenk ook dat zowel bij de Gripen belanghebbenden als bij de Gripen tegenstanders (die andere belangen hebben) de campagne nog op volle toeren draait.
Citaat van: Chrisis op 14/05/2012 | 16:53 uur
Op zich verontrustend nieuws. Aan de andere kant, deze krant heeft nog geen enkele keer positef nieuws over de Gripen NG geuit. Het komt dus niet bepaald objectief over. Net zoals veel Franstalige kranten die bij voorbaat de voorkeur hebben voor de Rafale.
Zo vind ik het vreemd dat er hier uitspraken worden gedaan over de Radar. Terwijl de nieuwe AESA Radar nog ingebouwd moet worden.
Hier heb je een punt, de vraag is alleen wat is het positieve NG nieuws, ik vind het verdacht stil in het hoge noorden.
Positieve kant van dit Zwitserse verhaal is vast een reactie (positief natuurlijk) van Saab.
Eigenlijk ben ik benieuwd naar de status van deze kleine Viking en dan net zo uitgekauwd als bij het JSF progamma immers de Klu is nog steeds een kandidaat.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/05/2012 | 16:59 uur
Hier heb je een punt, de vraag is alleen wat is het positieve NG nieuws, ik vind het verdacht stil in het hoge noorden.
Positieve kant van dit Zwitserse verhaal is vast een reactie (positief natuurlijk) van Saab.
Eigenlijk ben ik benieuwd naar de status van deze kleine Viking en dan net zo uitgekauwd als bij het JSF progamma immers de Klu is nog steeds een kandidaat.
Ik ook :)
MEERVOUDIG CITAAT VERWIJDERD!!
Rob
Forumbeheerder
Misschien zijn Zwitserse vliegers wel hetzelfde als Nederlandse, dus met een uitgesproken voorkeur wat zich vertaald in een modus dat elke andere kist niet voldoet?
Zo snel Zweedse piloten zich zorgen gaan maken ga ik me dat ook maken wat betreft de Gripen E/F.....meningen van testpiloten van andere landen neem ik met een flinke korrel zout...ook omdat ze vaak "ver/gewend" zijn aan andere toestellen...niet zelden made in US of A...(en soms France).
Citaat van: Kapitein Rob op 14/05/2012 | 18:12 uur
Misschien zijn Zwitserse vliegers wel hetzelfde als Nederlandse, dus met een uitgesproken voorkeur wat zich vertaald in een modus dat elke andere kist niet voldoet?
Dat zou natuurlijk kunnen, blijft natuurlijk het verhaal dat de Rafale, blijkbaar, op alle punten beter scoord dan de Viking.
Het wachten is op de onvermijdelijke reactie van Saab.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/05/2012 | 18:16 uurDat zou natuurlijk kunnen, blijft natuurlijk het verhaal dat de Rafale, blijkbaar, op alle punten beter scoord dan de Viking.
Het wachten is op de onvermijdelijke reactie van Saab.
Dat is ook niet zo vreemd gezien de tweede motor en grotere capaciteiten. Maar de Zwitsers willen juist een eenvoudig te onderhouden en vliegen toestel dat van geïmproviseerde bases kan optreden. En dat operationele profiel zou ook Nederland moeten aanspreken gezien de te verwachte operaties en krimpende budgetten en tekorten aan technisch personeel.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 14/05/2012 | 18:14 uur
Zo snel Zweedse piloten zich zorgen gaan maken ga ik me dat ook maken wat betreft de Gripen E/F.....meningen van testpiloten van andere landen neem ik met een flinke korrel zout...ook omdat ze vaak "ver/gewend" zijn aan andere toestellen...niet zelden made in US of A...(en soms France).
Als je gewend bent een antieke F5 te vliegen of een een jaren tachtig F18A dan val het met de verwennerij best wel mee denk ik zo.
Er zijn twee mogelijkheden, het is waar of niet.
Wat we niet moeten doen, gelijk aan de JSF lobby, is de Gripen NG op een voetstukplaatsen want dat zou maar zo oogkleppen kunnen opleveren.
Laten we niet vergeten dat de NG ook nog niet rondvliegt en een volledige nieuwe Saab betreft met de nodige ontwikkel risico's van dien.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 14/05/2012 | 18:23 uurAls je gewend bent een antieke F5 te vliegen of een een jaren tachtig F18A dan val het met de verwennerij best wel mee denk ik zo.
Er zijn twee mogelijkheden, het is waar of niet.
Wat we niet moeten doen, gelijk aan de JSF lobby, is de Gripen NG op een voetstukplaatsen want dat zou maar zo oogkleppen kunnen opleveren.
Laten we niet vergeten dat de NG ook nog niet rondvliegt en een volledige nieuwe Saab betreft met de nodige ontwikkel risico's van dien.
klopt....maar we praten toch in andere verhoudingen qua risico's en kosten e.d. als bij de F-35. Anders zou het enkel land als Zweden de ontwikkeling van de E en F versie...zoals ze van plan zijn...toch echt niet zelf kunnen volbrengen/bekostigen. En ik begreep dat men in Zwitserland eigenlijk ook liever weer een tweemotorig toestel wenst. Maar volgens Poleme hoeven we ons hier niet zo'n zorgen over te maken.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 14/05/2012 | 19:11 uur
klopt....maar we praten toch in andere verhoudingen qua risico's en kosten e.d. als bij de F-35. Anders zou het enkel land als Zweden de ontwikkeling van de E en F versie...zoals ze van plan zijn...toch echt niet zelf kunnen volbrengen/bekostigen. En ik begreep dat men in Zwitserland eigenlijk ook liever weer een tweemotorig toestel wenst. Maar volgens Poleme hoeven we ons hier niet zo'n zorgen over te maken.
Kortom het is wachten op meer (onafhankelijke) berichtgeving rondom de voortgang van het E/F project er komt maar weinig over naar buiten.
Japan to purchase 4 stealth fighters
Asia News Network (China Daily), Tokyo, Japan | Tue, 05/15/2012 7:36 AM
Japan planned to sign a contract with the United States next month for the purchase of four F-35 stealth fighter jets despite a price increase for the aircraft, local media reported Monday.
The fighter jets are set to be delivered before the end of fiscal year 2016 and may cost about $138 million per unit. The Japanese government is making arrangements with the US for the purchase as part of the budget in the current fiscal year which ends next March.
The Japanese government decided in December to choose the F-35 stealth jet, developed by the United States and eight other countries, as the country's next-generation fighter jet.
The government originally estimated the price of the jet to be about 9.9 billion yen (about US$123 million) per aircraft. The price rose after the US decided to postpone its purchase of the jets due to its defense budget cuts.
Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter, which had been reviewed along with Boeing's FA-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, will replace the country's 40-year-old fleet of F-4s.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/15/japan-purchase-4-stealth-fighters.html
Delays and challenges for Indo-Russian fighter
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi May 15, 2012, 00:15 IST
The FGFA is the flagship of the Indo-Russian partnership. Both countries say it would be the world's most advanced fighter. But interviews with Indian designers who have overseen the project suggest significant disquiet. There is apprehension the FGFA would significantly exceed its current $6 million budget, because this figure reflects the expenditure on just the basic aircraft. Crucial avionics systems would cost extra.
On the positive side, Indian designers say the FGFA project would provide invaluable experience in testing and certifying a heavy fighter aircraft that is bigger and more complex than the Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA), India's foundational aerospace achievement.
The Russian and Indian air forces each plan to build about 250 FGFAs, at an estimated cost of $100 million per fighter. That adds up to $25 billion each, in addition to the development cost.
The FGFA's precursor has already flown. In January 2010, Russian company Sukhoi test-flew a prototype called the PAK-FA, the acronym for Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsy (literally prospective aircraft complex of frontline aviation). Now, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will partner Sukhoi to transform the bare-bones PAK-FA into an FGFA that meets the Indian Air Force (IAF)'s requirements of stealth (near-invisibility to radar), super-cruise (supersonic cruising speed), networking (real-time digital links with other battlefield systems) and world-beating airborne radar that outranges enemy fighters.
But Sukhoi insists the PAK-FA already meets Russia's requirements, says N C Agarwal, HAL's design chief, who spearheaded the FGFA negotiations until his recent retirement. HAL worries Russia might ask India to pay extra for further development, particularly the avionics that transform a mere flying machine into a lethal weapons platform. That would leave the $6-billion budget in tatters.
The IAF clearly wants a top-of-the-line FGFA. According to Ashok Nayak, who spoke to Business Standard as HAL's chairman before retiring last October, the IAF has specified 40-45 improvements that must be made to the PAK-FA. These have been formalised into an agreed list between Russia and India, the Tactical Technical Assignment.
A key IAF requirement is a '360-degree' AESA (airborne electronically scanned active) radar, rather than the AESA radar that Russia developed. Either way, India would pay Russia extra: either in licence fee for the Russian radar; or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, for developing a world-beating, 360-degree AESA radar.
Nor is the IAF clear on whether the FGFA should be a single-seat fighter like the PAK-FA, or a twin-seat aircraft like the Sukhoi-30MKI. A section of the IAF backs a single-seat fighter, while another prefers two pilots for flying and fighting a complex, networked fighter. During the ongoing preliminary design phase (PDP), for which India paid $295 million, the two sides would determine whether developing the PAK-FA into a twin-seat aircraft (inevitably more bulky) would reduce the FGFA's stealth and performance unacceptably.
"The single-seat FGFA is essential for the IAF, and we will transform the Russian single-seat fighter into our single-seat version with a large component of Indian avionics. The twin-seat version will depend on the PDP conclusions," says Nayak.
The PDP also requires Sukhoi to hand over design documentation to HAL, providing it a detailed insight into the design processes of the PAK-FA. Since India took years to decide to join the FGFA project, HAL missed out the design phase entirely.
The 18-month PDP, which terminates this year, will be followed by the 'R&D phase', which could take another seven years, says the HAL chairman. The FGFA would be designed in both countries. About 100 HAL engineers already operate from a facility in Bangalore. Another contingent would move to Russia to work in the Sukhoi design bureau.
"Our boys will learn the Russian language, their way of working, their design rules and their design norms. We are left-hand drive, while they are right-hand drive. The Russians say they would part with all these things," says Nayak.
But the most valuable learning, say HAL executives, would take place during the FGFA's flight-testing. "Unlike the basic design phase which we missed out on, we will actually gain experience during flight testing. This phase throws up dozens of problems, and we will participate in resolving these, including through design changes," says Agarwal.
HAL designers also relish the FGFA's specific challenges. For achieving stealth, its missiles, rockets and reconnaissance payloads are concealed in an internal bay under the wings. Before using these, a door slides open, exposing the weapon for use.
The Russians clearly believe HAL possesses useful capabilities, including the ability to design the AESA radar. Also attractive is India's experience in composites.
"The LCA programme has generated a high level of expertise in composite materials within the National Aerospace Laboratory and some joint teams. The FGFA requires 'higher modulus' composites, which can withstand the 120-130 degree Centigrade temperatures that arise whilst flying at Mach 1.7 speeds," says Agarwal.
Despite the continuing imponderables, HAL believes the FGFA project provides genuine technological skills, far more useful than licensed manufacture. Agarwal says, "We will pay some $6-7 billion to France for the licence to build the Rafale in HAL. In the FGFA project, a similar sum would bring in genuine design knowledge that will help us in the future."
http://business-standard.com/india/news/delayschallenges-for-indo-russian-fighter/474329/
CORLEY AND LOONEY: Real consequences of delaying F-35 program
Slowing production will increase costs and keep pilots in obsolete fighters
By Gens. John D.W. Corley and William R. Looney III
Friday, May 11, 2012
Although American warriors have returned from Iraq and many are re- turning from Afghanistan, our nation still faces serious and continuing security threats. The return - and painful loss - of U.S. combat troops should serve as a reminder that as a nation, we have a solemn duty to provide our military professionals with the best tools available to accomplish their missions at the lowest possible loss of life. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter falls squarely into that category.
Simply put, the multirole F-35 is a critical element in the struggle to safeguard national security. The most technically advanced multirole fighter aircraft in the world today, it represents an indispensable leap in capability and survivability over the current generation of fighters it is designed to replace. With advanced stealth and fully integrated avionics systems, the F-35 will enable pilots to penetrate into hostile territory, secure vital airspace or support ground forces with precision strike capabilities and then return safely.
Like other military systems procured over the past half-century, the F-35 is being tested, refined and produced simultaneously in a process known as "concurrency." By interrelating testing and production, the F-35 program achieves efficiencies that help control costs, drive refinements and speed the delivery of aircraft to our armed services. Concurrency has been a key element in the strategy for bringing this new aircraft into our nation's fighter force in a timely manner and at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers - until now.
Unfortunately, today some argue that there is too much concurrency in the F-35 program and claim that production should remain at a low rate. Despite the fact that the program exceeded its flight test goals for 2011 and is ahead of the planned flight test goals for 2012, some contend the F-35 is not yet ready to begin high-rate production. This flawed argument injects significant operational risk above the already negative impacts from three previous years of program reductions that moved 425 aircraft deliveries to later years.
Continuing to keep F-35 production at low rates will be a costly mistake. F-35 cost is based on consistent and predictable increases in production rates to maintain program affordability. Those increases allow the fixed production costs to be spread over more units each year, lowering the incremental cost per plane. Suppliers will make the necessary capital investments in the equipment needed to build the F-35 only if they believe the program will continue to grow at a balanced pace from testing through production.
Many of today's pilots are flying multirole fighters that were designed - and in some cases built - before they were born. While these aged aircraft were the most capable of their generation, their airframes are wearing out, and they cannot be retrofitted to equal the F-35's stealth and avionics capabilities. Worse is that these fighters can only be operated at increasing cost - in force size and support assets - all while raising a conspicuously high level of risk in the threat environments of today and tomorrow. Continuing down this path will not only seriously increase taxpayer expenditures, but also cost the lives of numerous pilots and compromise national security.
The F-35 program, from its inception, was designed to strike an appropriate balance on concurrency that enables the fielding of needed fifth-generation capability at an affordable cost. Noteworthy development to date, combined with multiple reductions in production ramp rates, already have reduced the concurrency risk. But continuing to suppress the production rates will - without question - increase unit costs in the near term and drive potential international customers toward "cheaper, later" production models down the line. It will delay delivery of the critically needed operational F-35 and further aggravate total force-structure shortfalls for active, National Guard and Reserve forces and their old, less capable legacy fighters.
Bottom line: Department of Defense-directed F-35 concurrency is a good idea that can drive down cost. Currently, nothing in F-35 flight test, software development or factory production indicates a necessity to further hold back production at low rates. Fielding the F-35 sooner rather than later is crucial to the security of United States and our allies.
Retired Gen. John D.W. Corley served as the U.S. Air Force vice chief of staff, commander of Air Combat Command and senior uniformed acquisition official. Retired Gen. William R. Looney III commanded the U.S. Air Force's Air Education and Training Command and the service's Aeronautical and Electronics Systems Centers. Both are consultants to Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the F-35.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/11/real-consequences-of-delaying-f-35-program/#%2ET7IItQJCacI%2Etwitter
200th Flight for F-35B Test Aircraft BF-3
(Source: Naval Air Systems Command; issued May 10, 2012)
PATUXENT RIVER, Md. --– U.S. Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly flies F-35B test aircraft BF-3 in an Atlantic test range May 3. The 200th test flight for BF-3 measured stresses on the aircraft during supersonic maneuvers.
The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter for the U.S. Marine Corps, capable of short take-offs and vertical landings for use on amphibious ships or expeditionary airfields to provide air power to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force.
The F-35B is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135205/f_35-stovl-aircraft-makes-200th-flight.html
De F-22 is een vliegbeperking opgelegd, vanwege zuurstof problemen.
Zie: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11718911-panetta-restricts-f-22-flights-due-to-oxygen-system-complaints?lite
Citaat van: Lex op 15/05/2012 | 23:53 uur
De F-22 is een vliegbeperking opgelegd, vanwege zuurstof problemen.
Zie: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11718911-panetta-restricts-f-22-flights-due-to-oxygen-system-complaints?lite
Toch apart dat ze dit probleem nog steeds niet hebben kunnen verhelpen.
Italian AF, Navy Head for F-35B Showdown
May. 15, 2012 - 11:21AM
By TOM KINGTON
ROME — Italy's decision to slash its overall F-35 Joint Strike Fighter order from 131 to 90 jets has kick-started a debate over how the Italian Air Force and Navy can divide a shrinking number of F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) versions in the package.
With both services wanting the jet and neither likely to get the number they want, talks are underway at the Ministry of Defense to find a solution, with a pooled fleet a growing possibility, officials and analysts said.
Before Defense Minister Giampao-lo di Paola announced the JSF reduction in February, prompted by defense spending cuts, the Air Force had planned to acquire 69 conventional F-35As to replace its Tornados and 40 F-35Bs to replace its AMX fighter bombers, citing a need to field STOVL aircraft to exploit short landing strips. That left the Navy with 22 STOVL versions to replace its aging AV-8 Harriers on its new carrier, the Cavour.
In a recent interview with the Italian publication Airpress, Air Force chief Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis said, "The Air Force will have 75
F-35s, of which 15 will be B, adding to the Navy's 15."
His prediction, however, followed statements from Rear Adm. Paolo Treu, head of Italian naval aviation, that 22 STOVL aircraft, not 15, is the absolute minimum number the Navy can order. That suggests the talks at the MoD will be heated.
"If the Navy is asked to go down to 15 aircraft, it will fight to the very end against it," said Silvio Lora-Lamia, who has covered Italy's JSF acquisition for Bologna-based defense publication Analisi Difesa.
Bernardis' prediction envisions the Air Force losing nine F-35As and 25 F-35Bs. The Navy would lose fewer STOVLs — just seven. But Navy officials claim that 22 F-35Bs is just enough to keep a full contingent aboard Cavour during operations.
With three aircraft likely to be kept in the U.S. as a contribution to a pilot training pool and five predicted to need maintenance at any given time, 14 would be left. They and six helicopters complete Cavour's line-up.
While Cavour awaits its JSFs, the vessel has completed qualification to host Italy's AV-8s as a stopgap before they are retired from service around 2020. Qualification had not been completed during last year's Libyan conflict, meaning that Italy's older carrier, the Garibaldi, was called in to launch AV-8 missions over Libya.
If the STOVL fleet is 30 aircraft, neither the Navy nor the Air Force would be able to manage, one analyst said.
"If the Air Force wants a squadron, 15 aircraft is not enough," said former Italian military chief of staff Gen. Vincenzo Camporini, now a vice president at the Italian think tank IAI.
The only solution, he said, is for the two services to operate one pooled fleet. "This has to be the future, otherwise it is unsustainable," he said. "There should not be a problem for pilots if their aircraft was being used by another service the week before an operation."
A pooled fleet, he said, would mean one shared air base. Currently the Navy plans to host its JSFs, when on land, at its Grottaglie base in southern Italy. The Air Force is eyeing its Amendola base, also in southern Italy, as one of two JSF bases.
A senior defense source confirmed the aircraft would be interchangeable. But pilots will not be, due to the different skills involved in flying from land and from a carrier deck.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120515/DEFREG01/305150010/Italian-AF-Navy-Head-F-35B-Showdown?odyssey=nav%7Chead
A Second Stealthy Chinese J-20 Jet Has Been Spotted
2002 China j-20
by Max Eddy | 8:30 am, May 15th, 2012
In January of last year, China made a bit of splash when a never-before-seen jet suddenly appeared. It was dubbed the J-20 and though it's been photographed by fans in the months since its debut, not much is known about this stealthy new addition to the Chinese fleet. However, one thing is now certain: There is another.
Though it's difficult to say, Google translated webpages seem to indicate that a second J-20 with the number 2002 has been spotted at an undisclosed airport within the last few days. For reference, the J-20 spotted last January is number 2001.
The two planes appear to be largely identical, with minor changes to the 2002 aircraft. One change, noticed by the DEW line blog, is that the air data probe (the spike thingy on the front of the plane) has been moved to the tip of the aircraft. Originally, it was slightly offset.
Interestingly, pictures of the new aircraft emerged on the Global Times. Though the Times apparently has a reputation for controversy, it's worth noting that its parent company is owned by the Chinese Communist Party. While I hesitate to read too much into this, it could be that the government is continuing to use the prototype jet to attract public attention as well as develop new military hardware.
Not much is known about the J-20 program, but the unveiling of a second jet is certainly interesting. That would at least seem to indicate that the J-20 project is alive and well, and perhaps even progressing. Maybe we'll be seeing more of these in the coming years.
Zie Link voor een aantal foto's
http://www.geekosystem.com/second-j-20/
Philippines may buy fighters other than US
The Philippines is looking at arming itself for the first time with dedicated fighter jets made outside of the United States, President Benigno Aquino said Wednesday amid a territorial dispute with China.
The Philippines last month requested aircraft, patrol boats and radar systems from its US military ally to help it achieve what the government said would be a "minimum credible defence".
Aquino said that his government had asked to buy second-hand F-16s from the United States, but their maintenance costs could end up being too high because of their age.
"We might end up spending $400 million or $800 million per squadron, and we were thinking of getting two squadrons," he said in an interview with Manila's Bombo Radio.
"We do have an alternative, and -- this is a surprise -- it seems we have the capacity to buy brand-new, but not from America," Aquino said, without mentioning the aircraft model.
"These are manufactured by another progressive country that I won't name at this point."
Aquino noted that Manila had retired its last fighter jet, a Korean War-vintage F-5, in 2005. It does continue to fly S211 trainer jets made by the Italian firm Marchetti, which are sometimes used as ground attack aircraft against various insurgencies.
But along with the F-5, the Philippines had previously relied on obsolete US hand-me-downs including the T-33 and the P-51 Mustang as dedicated attack fighters, and the country now has no effective air defences.
It is engaged in a tense maritime standoff with China over the disputed Scarborough Shoal and surrounding waters in the South China Sea. Both nations have stationed vessels there for over a month to assert their sovereignty.
http://my.news.yahoo.com/philippines-may-buy-fighters-other-073144762.html
Citaat van: my.news.yahoo.com Vandaag om 12:32
Philippines may buy fighters other than US
Als tweedehands F16's te duur zijn in onderhoud en ze hebben hun oog laten vallen op een niet Amerikaans product dan blijven niet veel producerende landen over, zeker niet als ze een nieuw product willen aanschaffen.
Ik kom dan niet verder dan Zweden of Pakistan.
En pakistan is nu niet echt progressief.
Daarbij heeft china daar een aardige invloed, wat ze ook onwenselijk vinden mogelijk..
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/05/2012 | 12:37 uur
Citaat van: my.news.yahoo.com Vandaag om 12:32
Philippines may buy fighters other than US
Als tweedehands F16's te duur zijn in onderhoud en ze hebben hun oog laten vallen op een niet Amerikaans product dan blijven niet veel producerende landen over, zeker niet als ze een nieuw product willen aanschaffen.
Ik kom dan niet verder dan Zweden of Pakistan.
Omdat ze low-budget moeten, zijn er wel wat andere mogelijkheden, zoals :
- Italie, Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, een trainer, maar goed in te zetten als light attack / fighter aircraft
- Zuid Korea, KAI T-50 Golden Eagle, idem, ook als Multi-role fighter FA-50
- Czech, Aero L 159 ALCA (Advanced Light Combat Aircraft
Alles beter dan de F-ata Morgana. Of had ik die "grap" al eens gemaakt? :crazy:
Saudi Arabian Typhoons to get capability boost
By: Craig Hoyle London
BAE Systems will deliver the remaining 48 Eurofighter Typhoons on order for Saudi Arabia over the next five years, with the first examples now in final assembly at the company's Warton site in Lancashire.
A contract modification to Riyadh's 72-aircraft Project Al Salam deal was signed earlier this year, with the nation seeking to introduce additional capability to the European type. BAE says it resumed assembly work in January, as the revised deal was still being finalised.
The Royal Saudi Air Force's remaining Tranche 2 aircraft will be completed in the UK at a rate of between eight and 10 per year, and will be "future-proofed" to receive planned enhancements. Airframe modifications would enable them to carry an active electronically scanned array radar and potentially range-extending conformal fuel tanks.
Saudi Arabia already has 24 Typhoons operational at its Taif air base, and is seeking to integrate national-specific equipment such as a French- or US-sourced targeting pod and precision-guided bombs in the short term. However, the bulk of its equipment requirements are in alignment with the development path now being defined for the four Eurofighter partner nations via a phase one enhancement process, sources say.
"The core nations can only benefit from work beyond the core programme," one source says, referring to the Saudi commitment as "a critical mass to hook into for exports".
BAE Systems Saudi Arabia employs about 5,300 people, including approximately 3,500 Saudi nationals. An in-service support capability for the Typhoon fleet is to be established in the country, with Riyadh also to receive significant technology transfer under the terms of its revised contract.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saudi-arabian-typhoons-to-get-capability-boost-371967/
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/05/2012 | 12:37 uur
Citaat van: my.news.yahoo.com Vandaag om 12:32
Philippines may buy fighters other than US
Als tweedehands F16's te duur zijn in onderhoud en ze hebben hun oog laten vallen op een niet Amerikaans product dan blijven niet veel producerende landen over, zeker niet als ze een nieuw product willen aanschaffen.
Ik kom dan niet verder dan Zweden of Pakistan.
De Zweedse luchmacht heef nog wel wat Gripens in depot staan, de kan men verkopen en er Gripens NG ervoor terug nemen?
Citaat van: Ace1 op 16/05/2012 | 17:35 uur
De Zweedse luchmacht heef nog wel wat Gripens in depot staan, de kan men verkopen en er Gripens NG ervoor terug nemen?
Het persbericht spreekt over "it seems we have the capacity to buy brand-new"
Als dat zo is, dan gaat het (indien het Zweden betreft) hooguit om nieuwe Gripen B/C's, Het zou wel een passende "regio" oplossing zijn.
Afwachten maar.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 16/05/2012 | 17:44 uur
Het persbericht spreekt over "it seems we have the capacity to buy brand-new"
Als dat zo is, dan gaat het (indien het Zweden betreft) hooguit om nieuwe Gripen B/C's, Het zou wel een passende "regio" oplossing zijn.
Afwachten maar.
Thailand heeft/gaat ook de F5's vervangen door Gripens.
Citaat van: dudge op 16/05/2012 | 17:58 uur
Thailand heeft/gaat ook de F5's vervangen door Gripens.
Precies. Het zou een mooie opsteker voor Saab zijn en het zou kunnen leiden tot een interessante Aziatische samenwerking.
USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10
By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC
The US Air Force has concluded that the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35B- model aircraft cannot generate enough sorties to meet its needs; therefore the service will not consider replacing the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog close air support jet with that variant.
Meanwhile, the USAF and the US Navy are hoping to more closely integrate their forces as part of the US Department of Defense's (DoD) new AirSea battle concept.
"The F-35B is well-suited to support of the Marine Air Ground Taskforce (MAGTF) in very austere locations," says USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz, speaking at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. "But the reality is, is that scenario is not a high sortie generation scenario."
The USAF and the US Navy need greater sortie generation rates than the F-35B can provide, Schwartz says.
"What we think is needed is high sortie generation in order to provide persistence over the target and to engage the variety of targets that may exist," he says. "Not in a confined battlespace, but more on a theatre basis."
The F-35B is an interesting aircraft, Schwartz says. But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.
Retired Lt Gen George Trautman, a former US Marine Corps (USMC) deputy commandant for aviation, disputes Schwartz's assertion that the F-35B cannot generate as many sorties as the A or C model aircraft.
"The F35B has highest sortie generation rate among the three JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] variants," Trautman says. "There may be other reasons the air force doesn't want the B, but sortie rate isn't a factor."
In fact, the USMC's concept of operations depends on the STOVL variant generating more sorties more rapidly than other JSF models, says retired USMC Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former naval aviator.
The key performance parameters (KPP) for the F-35 require higher sortie rates for the B-model at four sorties per day. The A and C models are only required to generate three sorties per day.
"So far in SDD [System Development and Demonstration], all three variants are on track to exceed their KPPs at the completion of SDD," Gardner says. "The B looks to come in at about six sorties per day, the A at about 3.5 and the C at close to four."
While USAF will not consider buying the F-35B, the service is fully committed to buying its own conventional take-off F-35A variant. Fighters like the stealthy F-35 are not in any danger of being replaced by unmanned combat aircraft anytime in the near future because those machines are not yet capable of flying in airspace protected by advanced integrated air defence systems.
"The reality is, is that at least in the current [generation], a remotely piloted aircraft cannot survive in contested airspace," Schwartz says.
Stealthy fifth-generation fighters, the Northrop Grumman B-2, the nascent USAF Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), are critical capabilities for the US military to operate inside anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) environments.
Those types of aircraft "will allow us to operate within contested airspace and assert our access," Schwartz says, "Which is the fundamental tenant of AirSea battle."
The DoD's new AirSea battle concept, while still integrating the USMC and US Army, is primarily driven by the USN and USAF. At its most basic level, the concept calls for the seamless integration of USN and USAF assets so that the two service's aircraft, ships, submarines and space assets all work together, says USN chief of naval operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert.
"Our links need to be similar," Greenert says, "Or minimally compatible."
Eventually, if everything goes according to the USAF and USN vision, a USAF Boeing E-3 Sentry or USN Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye could seamlessly share a common picture with an Aegis cruiser and F-22 or Boeing F/A-18 at the same time.
The two services are already working on a next generation data-link to share all that information, Schwartz says. But for existing legacy platforms, there will need to be "gateways", like the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN).
But there is the danger of information overload. At the senior leadership level, the air or maritime joint component commanders might not need to know all of the detailed information that the other needs. Already, there might be too much extraneous data, Greenert says. In the future, that information will need to be filtered properly.
"I don't want to everything that the air component commander knows," he says. "We're already almost overloaded from that perspective we want to share what the...critical contacts of interest are cross domain."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-f-35b-cannot-generate-enough-sorties-to-replace-a-10-371985/
Citaat van: lightglobal.com Vandaag om 09:24
The US Air Force has concluded that the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35B- model aircraft cannot generate enough sorties to meet its needs; therefore the service will not consider replacing the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog close air support jet with that variant.
Nu weet ik niet hoeveel A10's op de nominatie stonden om tzt vervangen te worden door de F35B (1 op 1 of een andere verhouding) maar met dit soort uitspraken (terecht naar mijns inziens) gaat het totaal aantal JSF 's met weer een aanzienlijk aantal naar beneden bijgesteld worden.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 17/05/2012 | 09:31 uur
Nu weet ik niet hoeveel A10's op de nominatie stonden om tzt vervangen te worden door de F35B (1 op 1 of een andere verhouding) maar met dit soort uitspraken (terecht naar mijns inziens) gaat het totaal aantal JSF 's met weer een aanzienlijk aantal naar beneden bijgesteld worden.
Nu heeft vooral het plan om de A10 door de F35 te vervangen altijd al wat vraagtekens opgeroepen. Lijkt me een goede beslissing, al vraag ik me af waarom sortiegeneratie nu als reden wordt opgeven, bied ook weer ruimte om terug te krabbelen.
Citaat van: dudge op 17/05/2012 | 09:38 uur
Nu heeft vooral het plan om de A10 door de F35 te vervangen altijd al wat vraagtekens opgeroepen. Lijkt me een goede beslissing, al vraag ik me af waarom sortiegeneratie nu als reden wordt opgeven, bied ook weer ruimte om terug te krabbelen.
Precies. Ik kan me voorstellen dat de USAF een waardige A10 vervanger wil hebben tegen een fractie van de kosten van de F35B.
A-10s vanaf vliegdekschepen? dit toestel is echt niet stuk te krijgen. De USAF wilde er al vaker vanaf...maar het ding blijft gewoon doorvliegen. Geen vervanger voor te vinden...of men moet gewoon nieuwe gaan bouwen. Met landingshaak en opvouwbare vleugels dan.
Citaat van: Elzenga op 17/05/2012 | 11:44 uur
A-10s vanaf vliegdekschepen? dit toestel is echt niet stuk te krijgen. De USAF wilde er al vaker vanaf...maar het ding blijft gewoon doorvliegen. Geen vervanger voor te vinden...of men moet gewoon nieuwe gaan bouwen. Met landingshaak en opvouwbare vleugels dan.
Ik denk dat er een opvolger gaat komen zodra de A10C aan vervanging toe is. En vanaf een carrier... waarom niet...
Ook voor de Klu graag een sqn.
The F-35: Super Plane for Super Cruise
By Ben Freeman | May 17, 2012
Tom Cruise steps onto the tarmac – cool and confident in his flight suit and dark aviator glasses. While his co-stars still call him Maverick, this isn't Top Gun and that's not an F-14 fighter plane. This is Top Gun 2, and the fighter plane he's getting into is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) – the most expensive weapon program ever, which is slated to be the mainstay of the U.S. Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps for decades to come.
While the recently announced Top Gun 2 won't be the F-35's first movie appearance – an F-35 tried in vain to kill Bruce Willis in Live Free or Die Hard, and the F-35 had a cameo in The Avengers – the announcement that it will be the plane of choice for Maverick's triumphant return to the big-screen has sparked controversy given the program's celebrity-like exorbitant spending and breakdowns.
The technology news website Gizmodo quipped: "The first question: What will Tom Cruise do? Stand on a runway, staring at his grounded F-35?"
It's not just technical problems that plague the plane. A couple months ago, the Department of Defense released new estimates for how much the F-35 will cost over its lifetime, and the price tag is staggering. The entire program is now expected to cost taxpayers nearly $1.51 trillion, more than any weapon in history. Those costs grew by more than $100 billion from last year's estimate.
Each individual plane now is estimated to cost $160 million – more than double the $74.5 million the DoD initially estimated they'd cost — and four times the price tag on the F-14 Tomcat that Maverick flew in the original movie [editor's note: movie-ticket prices have gone up, too – but merely doubled since the 1986 Top Gun].
There's ample reason to believe that even these astronomical costs will only grow.
First, the DoD continues to lowball the cost to operate the program, meaning the estimated $1.11 trillion in operating costs for the F-35 will only climb. These cost estimates assume that the F-35 will not face major design changes. Yet "much of its developmental and operational testing remains and the risk of future design changes is significant," the Government Accountability Office recently warned.
Major design changes mean increased costs. The GAO said some critical technologies were "not mature and present significant development risks" and a Pentagon review stated that there were major issues whose combined impact "results in a lack of confidence in the design stability."
The programs exorbitant cost crowds out funding for other military needs. According to the GAO, the future procurement funding needed for the F-35 is "enough to fund the remaining procurement costs of the next 15 largest programs." While it's true that the F-35 is, by design, a large program, it was supposed to be affordable. But the dreams of a cheap F-35 are long in the past.
There is an alternative, however – the FA-18 E/F Super Hornet. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars can be saved by replacing the most expensive and troublesome variants of the F-35 – the Navy and Marine variants – with Super Hornets (the Air Force variant is having markedly fewer problems and appears to be substantially cheaper than the other two).
While the Super Hornets lack the F-35's stealth, the U.S. military does not need this capability on all of its planes—the Air Force has stealthy F-22 fighters, and its own variant of the F-35, as well as the B-2 stealth bomber and a planned new long-range bomber, not to mention the possibility of stealthy drones.
Otherwise, Super Hornets have many capabilities that rival the F-35. The Super Hornet, unlike the F-35, is proven, and has "established an extraordinary record in operations around the globe, in combat, under all kinds of conditions," according to Admiral John Harvey, commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. And, despite the recent crash in Virginia Beach, the planes mishap rate is, "as low as it's ever been in naval aviation," according to Rear Admiral Ted Branch, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic.
Combine this with the fact that the Pentagon can buy three Super Hornets for the price of one F-35 Navy or Marine variant — and that these variants cost six times as much to fly as a Super Hornet — and the choice is easy.
The F-35 may be a movie star, but it's draining the Pentagon budget like Lindsay Lohan drains cocktails. The time has come for Congress and the Pentagon to stop believing that the F-35 program, in its current form of producing three variants, will ever deliver the capabilities it promised at a price taxpayers can afford, and start considering viable options. Our economic and national security demand it.
Ben Freeman is a National Security Investigator at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). He specializes in Department of Defense personnel issues, weapons procurement, and the impact of lobbying by foreign governments on U.S. foreign policy. He's the author of a forthcoming book on lobbying by foreign governments in the U.S., The Foreign Policy Auction, due out this summer.
Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/05/17/the-f-35-super-plane-for-super-cruise/#ixzz1v7wCruL1
House turns down amendments against F-35B, V-22
By Kate Brannen - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday May 17, 2012 20:25:09 EDT
A handful of Democrats put forward amendments that would have canceled or cut funding to weapons so that more money would be available for deficit reduction during House debate of the 2013 defense authorization bill Thursday. All of the amendments were voted down.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/05/defense-house-turns-down-amendments-against-f35b-v22-051712/
Citaat van: airforcetimes.com Vandaag om 08:30
House turns down amendments against F-35B, V-22
Hier had Engeland zo maar op eens een overwacht probleem kunnen hebben. :cute-smile:
Citaat van: jurrien visser link=topic=22004.msg270753#msg270753
Hier had Engeland zo maar op eens een overwacht probleem kunnen hebben. :cute-smile:
En schotland, wales en noord Ierland ook. ;)
Tja, dan zijn ze opnieuw mjarden kwijt.
J20：Maiden Flight of P2002 on May 16, 2012 (long version)After the images appeared on the Chinese Internet few hours after the aircraft had landed, a video showing the China's second J-20 stealth fighter prototype performing its first flight at Chengdu on May 16, 2012 has just been uploaded to Youtube.
Langley's F-22 pilot oxygen emergency during Red Flag caught on audio tape May 17, 2012
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation Safety, Military Aviation.
The F-22 Raptor was among the players of the recent Red Flag 12-3 exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
Belonging to the 27th FS from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, the planes did not feature the famous Increment 3.1 that gives the stealthy fighters the capability to use air-to-surface weapons, and could only play the air-to-air role.
Youtube user "pdlgs", a reader of this blog, has recorded some interesting radio comms of the exercise that he also uploaded on his YT channel for everyone to hear.
Among the several minutes of recorded pilot and controller chats, he has also caught an F-22 pilot using callsign "Rocket 04″ experiencing an in-flight physiological incident during a mission: suffering hypoxia like symptoms, the pilot declares an emergency requesting immediate descent to FL180 (18,000 feet) to face the oxygen deprivation condition.
Click below to hear the formation leader, informing the Nellis Range controller of the emergency.
Pdlgs has also recorded very weak audio file about Rocket 4 leaving the airspace and being escorted home by Rocket 3.
Noteworthy, the Squadron attending the last Red Flag is a unit of the 1st Fighter Wing, and Maj. Jeremy Gordon and Capt. Josh Wilson, the two "whistleblowers" appearing on CBS 60 minutes to explain why they were "uncomfortable" flying the Raptor (before changing idea few days later) belong to the 192th FW of the Virginia ANG, an associate unit of the Air Force's 1st FW at Langley.
Because of the mysterious problem that is still choking F-22 pilots without a known root cause, the Pentagon has restricted Air Force Raptors to fly near a "proximate landing location" in order to give pilots the possibility to land quickly if their planes' On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) fail.
As done by "Rocket 04″.
Russian AF to Get First T-50 Fighters in 2013
(Source: RIA Novosti; posted May 17, 2012)
VORONEZH, Russia --- The Russian Air Force will receive the first batch of prototypes of its fifth-generation T-50 fighter for performance testing in 2013, Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said on Thursday.
The T-50, developed under the PAK FA program (Future Aviation System for Tactical Air Force) at the Sukhoi experimental design bureau, is Russia's first new major warplane designed since the fall of the Soviet Union.
"The work on the fifth-generation fighter is going according to schedule," Zelin, a former Air Force commander, told a news conference in Voronezh (central Russia). "The third prototype has joined the testing program and the fourth is being built."
The T-50 made its maiden flight in January 2010 and three prototypes have since been undergoing flight tests.
Zelin earlier said that the number of T-50 aircraft involved in testing would be increased to 14 by 2015.
The fighter was first shown to the public in August 2011, in Zhukovsky near Moscow, at the MAKS-2011 air show.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135298/russian-af-to-get-first-t_50-fighters-in-2013.html
Russia to Sell Off 18 'Indian' Su-30 Fighters
(Source: RIA Novosti; posted May 16, 2012)
MINSK --- Russia is to put up for sale a batch of 18 Sukhoi Su-30 multirole fighter aircraft, rejected by India on concerns about their engines and returned to Russia in 2003, a defense official said on Wednesday.
"The 18 Su-30s previously used by India and then returned, are in an aviation repair plant in Belarus and are on sale to potential buyers," said Alexander Fomin, deputy director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation. He added that the aircraft could be modernized before being sold on.
The Su-30MKI is India's lead fighter aircraft, and around 140 have been produced under license by HAL Aeronautics in India. The Indian Air Force is expected to buy a total of around 280 during the next decade.
Development of the Su-30 began in the 1980s for the Soviet Armed Forces, based on the Su-27UB conversion trainer.
The first batch of 18 Su-30s delivered to India were Su-30MK and Su-30K standard, and were built to a lower specification than the later Su-30MKI. This meant that they did not have thrust-vectoring engine nozzles or canard foreplanes, enabling extra maneuverability.
Their avionics systems were also built to a lower specification than the later Su-30MKIs built by HAL, which included a high level of Israeli and French-built systems.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135294/russia-to-sell-off-18-%27indian%27-su_30-fighters.html
US House of Representatives votes to sell Taiwan jets
The US House of Representatives vote for the selling of 66 new fighter-jets to Taiwan to reduce the military balance of power with the militarily-growing China, Taiwan's greatest Asian rival
AFP, Friday 18 May 2012
The House of Representatives has voted to require the United States to sell 66 new fighter-jets to Taiwan, with lawmakers saying the deal would close a growing military gap with China.
The House of Representatives voted late Thursday to force President Barack Obama's administration to authorize the sales, as part of a slew of amendments to a defense bill adopted without objection in a marathon session.
The measure, which still needs approval by the Senate to become law, would require that the Obama administration approve Taiwan's request to buy 66 new F-16C/D jets in addition to plans already under way to upgrade existing planes.
The amendment's main sponsor, Republican Representative Kay Granger of Texas, said that Taiwan needed more than an upgrade of its aging fleet in light of the rapid growth in military spending by China, which claims the island.
"The sale of F-16s to Taiwan ensures our key strategic ally in the Pacific has the defense capacity to defend its own airspace," Granger said in a statement when she introduced the measure.
"Our support for a democratic Taiwan is consistent with our national security priorities in the region and demonstrates that we will continue to stand by our friends and allies no matter who or where the threats are from," she said.
The Obama administration authorized a $5.85 billion upgrade of Taiwan's existing jets in September but held off on the sale of brand-new jets.
The administration argued that the upgrade would bring more immediate benefits to Taiwan than a sale, but the move was widely seen as a way to limit criticism by China as a time the United States sought Beijing's help on other issues.
China publicly denounced the upgrade plan but US officials say that they have seen little concrete retaliation, such as a freeze on military relations, of the kind Beijing carried out after previous arms sales to Taiwan.
Senator John Cornyn, also a Republican from Texas, until last month blocked the confirmation of a Pentagon official until the White House said in a letter that it would give "serious consideration" to the sale of new jets.
The US Congress is a stronghold of support for Taiwan, where China's nationalists fled in 1949 after losing the civil war to the communists. The self-governing island has since developed into a prosperous democracy.
When the US switched recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, Congress approved a law that requires the administration to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/41990/World/International/US-House-of-Representatives-votes-to-sell-Taiwan-j.aspx
Citaat van: english.ahram.org.eg Vandaag om 05:23
The House of Representatives has voted to require the United States to sell 66 new fighter-jets to Taiwan, with lawmakers saying the deal would close a growing military gap with China.
Dat wordt weer een "relletje" ;D
Our "Maginot Line": is the single-seat fighter pilot mentality killing our men and our nation?
In the late 1950s the advent of guided missiles made it necessary for the fighter pilot to have a radar operator behind the pilot to target track and fire radar-guided air-to-air missiles (AAMs) to destroy enemy fighters beyond-visual range (BVR). The culmination of the "guy-in-back" (GIB) was the mighty F-4 Phantom II aircraft. The GIB also offered a second set of eyes for the pilot to detect enemy MIGs and during ground attack missions locate targets so the pilot can concentrate on not flying into the ground. A quick survey of world attack helicopters will show almost all are 2-seaters so a weapons officer can focus on targeting to free the pilot to fly aggressively and more safely.
However, a strange thing happened over the skies of North Vietnam.
By the time of the war's end many enemy MIGs were shot shown by crews flying the mighty F-4. The question arose WHO would get the credit for the kill to become the "ace" with 5 kills or more to attain the glory, fame and career push? Should only the pilot get the credit or should the credit be shared with the GIB?
We talk a good game about "teamwork" in the U.S. military but the sad truth is that raw egotism runs everything, there must be "haves" and "have nots" according to the ruling hierarchy to drive people to have meaningful 20 year careers.
The USAF's worst nightmare happened when the war ended: the highest MIG killing ace with "6" shoot-downs was NOT a pilot, it was a GIB: USAF Captain Richard DeBellevue!!!
Not surprisingly in the egotistical fighter jock world, this was unacceptable that the "top gun" would be an inferior being, a nasty GIB.
One of the downsides of the missile interceptor mentality of the late 1950s that gave birth to the GIB, was that fighters lost their guns and became very big and heavy, resulting in close range dogfighting skills to be forgotten. Their extra power made them great fighter-bombers to do quasi-strategic bombing but NVAF pilots like Colonel Tomb flying very maneuverable day dogfighters like the MIG-17 would exploit our fighter-bombers lack of dogfighting capability by close-in attacks with cannon to get us to pre-maturely drop ordnance and prevent the mission targets from being bombed. We'd then go chase after the MIGs but not have a gun and dogfighter skills in an agile highly maneuverable aircraft to be as successful as we could have been.
Thus, at the end of the Vietnam war, the USAF and USN vowed the F-4 replacement would be a pure air superiority fighter with the ability to dogfight well with a gun and in the case of the USAF not have a GIB to ruin the ego pecking order politics of the service. The USAF would excuse getting rid of the GIB by stating that computer electronics made his radar operation unnecessary and they could get better raw flight performance and range by not having the extra weight/height of a 2-seat canopy/cockpit, resulting in the F-15 Eagle.
The Navy kept the GIB in the F-14 Tomcat so it could have a more powerful AWG-9 radar to fire Phoenix AAMs with 100 mile ranges. However both aircraft are very expensive to build and complicated to maintain with all the black boxes to replace the GIB, so a cheaper single-seat, usually single engine fighter was chosen to do the less glorious fighter-bombing and pitch in once in awhile with air-to-air if up against the Soviet hordes. Thus begat the F-16 Fighting Falcon and tweaked with a second engine for over-water flight safety, the F-17 which became the overweight F/A-18 Hornet.
Meanwhile, the Army wanted an attack helicopter with wings to destroy the Russian tank armies on the ground called the AH-56 Cheyenne. However despite the fact that the USAF agreed when the Army handed over its Caribou STOL transport aircraft to them that there would be "no limits" to helicopter parameters the selfish egotist liars at HQAF went back on their words and complained about the Cheyenne and got its funding revoked. However, Congress wise to the USAF's hidden BS agenda of fighter pilot self-exaltation insisted that it take up its CAS job it says it wants to do and develop a fixed-wing armored attack aircraft that can kill tanks for the Army and the magnificent A-10 was born.
Single Seat is bad for Air-to-Air
Thus until the advent of the AMRAAM missile, the F-14 had a BVR range advantage over the F-15 which had only shorter range Sparrow radar-guided missiles. This edge ended with the long-range AMRAAM missile which has its own mini-radar in its own nose cone to paint and track enemy aircraft, making almost any single-seat fighter capable of long range BVR air-to-air kills. The barely Mach 2 F-16 killed a previously untouchable Mach 3.2 MIG-25 Foxbat in the first Gulf War because the missile flew itself to target, overcoming the former's lack of speed and altitude. The woefully underpowered, overweight F/A-18 even looks like a fighter if it can shoot AMRAAMs at long range. As could A-10s or helicopters or anything. But therein lies the rub with the "magic missile" mentality.
You can only carry a limited X amount of AMRAAMs. And even the U.S. can only afford a limited X amount of $1 million dollar AMRAAMs.
What do you do if you have fired all your AMRAAMs and the enemy fighter force that outnumbers you 3 to 1 is still approaching?
You still have not done your job but you have guns and short-range AIM-9X Sidewinder AAMs: you must be able to dogfight. In a dogfight, he who sees the other guy first has the best chance of turning to get onto his tail. Thus, if you have a GIB you have an extra set of eyes to get the advantage in a dogfight. But a second set of eyes will not be immediately possible because the USAF and USN by pecking order ego have wed themselves to the single-seat fighter for bureaucratic manning simplicity and a marginal gain in flight performance.
But the weapons system versus countermeasure struggle is NOT a zero sum game.
Anything you can do with one pilot you can do better with two-----thus computer electronics can now have the pilot's helmet steer the missile's guidance head to aim/fire and track all the way to the target without him having to get a good angle onto the target aircraft. Thus, is a turning dogfight a Chinese Communist MIG though "inferior" in flight performance if its pilot has a helmet slewing missile firing capability could get a missile exploding into the American pilot's more expensive single-seat F-15, F-16, F/A-18 first. To fully exploit helmet offset aiming/firing as has been common in the U.S. Army attack helicopter community with first the AH-1 HueyCobra and now the AH-64 Apache, the USAF/USN's aircraft need a GIB to get the drop on the enemy fighters first.
However, the GIB is a curse word in the fighter jock community and this explains why the single-seat F-22 (oh, F/A-22) is so viciously fought for by the ruling AF hierarchy: its stealth and supersonic cruise features will enable it to shoot down the enemy first at BVR without itself being detected! And the internal weapons bay will carry lots of AMRAAMs! Once they are expended, the F-22 will have thrust vectoring to dogfight if it has any more missiles to shoot, but more likely allow it to break contact and run back to base immune to enemy radar guided missiles via its low radar cross section and countermeasures. The F-22 is really a BVR interceptor to shoot and kill all the blips it can from a safe stand-off then run home to base. Then the single pilots become aces and pick up chicks.
However, what if the enemy floods the F-22's radar screens with unmanned drones/decoys to absorb all of the expensive BVR AMRAAMs? After all these blips are shot down, then what? Then the F-22 will have to dogfight even (or at a disadvantage if the enemy pilots have helmet offset aiming/firing) or run back to base in the face of superior CHICOM aircraft numbers.
By trying to use gadgets to work-around having a GIB, the U.S.'s fighter aircraft are now so complex when called on to fly CAP over America's cities on a 24/7/365 basis they simply cannot sustain it. By wanting to fly high and fast, these aircraft lack long range fuel efficiency for loiter time like the straight, fat-wing A-10s attack plane can do, but when a threat like terrorist airliners diving into crowded buildings is in the public limelight the USAF hierarchy cannot afford to let the hated A-10 get the glory, so the fighter CAP over our cities has stood down.
So much for "Air Supremecy"!
Single Seat is VERY BAD for CAS
To fly CLOSE air support attack missions to get a line-of-sight on enemy targets is very difficult from a 300 mph aircraft low to the ground, its next to impossible in a single-seat 500+ mph aircraft. A survey of the rash of single-seat A-10 crashes attrributed to "pilot error" begs the question that had the aircraft been a 2-seat OA-10B the GIB could have eased the workload by looking for targets and the pilot may have not made that error that flew him into the ground. Remember, every A-10 that crashes is one less of that hated platform the USAF fighter jock hierarchy has to pay homage to; if numbers dwindle like the B-26Ks in Vietnam, they will have a logistical excuse to retire the aircraft from service and no longer have a visible reminder that there are indeed other ways to bomb targets than from 10K and a stand-off. Congress and the public will not know any better from then on to question the USAF's egotistical prerogatives.
However, rather than embrace the GIB, the USAF is again looking to magic munitions to fly themselves to target so the aircraft can stay high and away from danger. That this mentality does not offer responsive CLOSE air support for U.S. Army ground maneuver units is immaterial, this is what the USAF wants to do. The USAF doesn't want to do CAS safely for the men on the ground by an armored, low-speed flight agile attack aircraft gun strafing by careful air or ground FAC nor safely for the men in the air by a GIB to manage the pilot's low-altitude workload. What the USAF wants to do is actually DAS--"distant air support"--from at least 10,000 feet above and several miles away which could be a B-52 dropping JDAMs within a glide path circle of reach to fly over the Army Soldier's heads and land on the enemy by GPS/INS coordinates. If the GPS is degraded or jammed, the INS is off, the ordanance fins get bent on release etc. and the JDAM lands on the Army Soldier's heads it c'est le guerre (ie: fuck you, too bad!). Like not wanting to close-range dogfight, the USAF doesn't want to do close-range attack missions with its (german accent) "Das is gewd" mentality, least of all to further the glory of their hated rival for Congressional dollars and public affection, the U.S. Army that gave birth to them in 1947 in the first place.
The precision bombardment from a distance mentality is just a manifestation of the DoD Tofflerian/RMA world-view that war is about blowing things up; when in reality war is about CONTROL; control of the ground where human being live on and the ruling ideas and governments that guide them. That dangerous enemies to the U.S. have escaped our so-called "global precision strike system" when it tries to win wars without decisive and in force Army ground maneuver, should come as no surprise. When a U.S. city is leveled to ashes by a nuclear 9/11 attack because we couldn't get the terrorists before they got us, will anyone be left standing to point out that the cause of this failure was our over-reliance on stand-off aircraft firepower to try to blow up problems on the ground instead of facing enemies up close and insuring they get taken care of?
Single-Seat is bad for maturing leaders
We talk a lot about "teamwork" and in the Army we do not ever send a Soldier alone on the battlefield, the very least he has a "Ranger Buddy" to look out for him. While having only one person die when a fighter crashes minimizes the pressure on the bureaucracy which can then write-off the tragedy as "pilot error", the fact being overlooked is a second set of eyes/awareness to include emergency flying capability could PREVENT many aircraft crashes and deaths. Two-seat aircraft could safely give a young pilot stick time with an overseeing mentor instead of him being totally alone in the cockpit where a second's inattention could cost him his life. But it takes HUMILITY to admit you need the help of a GIB, a virtue in short supply in the USAF!
A big thing is defined by the current AF buzzword of "situational awareness". Simply means you gotta know and take into account EVERYTHING affecting the mission. If you lock on to one facet to the exclusion of all other factors you won't last long even in peacetime. This is why GIBs are needed, because "two heads are better than one" Why should this be any less different in a fast moving jet? It should be even more urgent.
The ability to have situational awareness must be a factor that must be recognized by instructors and supervisors clear back in training - and acted upon. That last, acting upon - is where USAF Training Command has historically been weak - they tend to look at how much they have invested in the guy's training and are hesitant to throw it away by washing him out. This is short-sighted and extremely stupid because to cover their own asses and up the graduation rate they jeopardize a fifty million dollar airplane and pilot's lives down the pike. They'll claim their testing and evaluation processes are so good that any one admitted to pilot training is almost certain to graduate. That is not borne out by the evidence of dumb crashes after graduation.
Flying into the ground is a dumb crash.
I just got an e-mail from a friend down in Australia whose friend was washed out of RAAF fighter training 4 missions short of graduation.
He's now flying Caribous.
Hurrah for the RAAF!
A lot of guys can fly multi-motor transports perfectly well but are not suited for fighters. Things happen lots slower in transports, there's at least two brains divvying up the load, and they don't have such a demanding mission as fighters do.
The USAF should set up a limited-duty career field - fighter pilot - and weed out the clucks and keep the good guys in the cockpit instead of trying to make everyone a general. The guys who decide they want a career path to General would transition to GIB before leaving the cockpit for the armor-plated desk.
Instead, today, once a guy makes major or LTC he is shipped out of the cockpit just when he becomes a world-class expert and gets a big fat desk to fly. A guy is still fit to fly fighters at any age if the docs pass him and he measures up to the job and is competitive with his colleagues. Just think what the services would be like if we took our 35-40 year old NCOs and stuck them all behind desks? So why in hell should we park a pilot with 15 years experience so some second lieutenant of unknown capabilities can take his cockpit slot, fly some single seat missions, destroy the aircraft and get himself killed?
USAF/DCS Personnel calls it "career progression"
I call it fucking stupid.
Since when did career progression rank combat capability?
The USAF must become a 2-seat aircraft, humble, war-fighting force
The fix is simple; embrace HUMILITY.
Being a fighter pilot does not make you a god with a small "g".
Realize an air show at 10,000 feet exploding a lot of dirt does not impress an asymmetric enemy giving you decoys to waste expensive ordnance on. Wars require ground maneuver from the brothers in arms, Army and marines and this maneuver should be embraced by the USAF and magnified unselfishly. The Warden BS of concentric circle Douhet bombing must be scrapped. If the Army wants ANY kind of aircraft (to include fixed-wings) to help its men win and stay alive if the USAF cannot provide it, it shuts the fuck up and stays out of the way. Realizing that one size or aircraft type cannot be possibly optimized for all flight arenas, the slower and armored attack plane must not be looked down upon. By going to two-seat air force we can get non-pilot ground observers in the back to better spot and hit ground targets as well as provide a way to transition pilots and non-pilots to the desk leadership positions that will take the AF into the 21st Century. No longer will there be a two class AF society of "haves" (the pilots) and the "have nots" (everyone else) who can never reach high command.
With 2-seaters we will have simpler, less costly and easier-to-maintain aircraft with more reliability by an extra set of thinking awareness eyeballs that can fly in an emergency if the pilot is killed/incapacitated. We might be actually able to do long-term CAPs over cities. For long range and difficult missions where human flying cannot be replaced by an autopilot the GIB/emergency co-pilot can keep the main pilot fresh for when reaching the target area. Reduced pilot work-loads means less dumb crashes into the ground and millions of dollars in aircraft and lives saved. 2 pilots means better CAS and more enemy ground targets hit to enable decisive U.S. Army ground maneuver to locate, encircle, collapse and destroy enemies.
And we might not bankrupt our nation with ever more expensive and costly fighters in the fatal "Death spiral" that afflicts DoD.
http://www.combatreform.org/singleseatdeathsentence.htm
Is this the biggest Chinese rip-off ever?
People's Republic unveils stealth fighter... but it looks remarkably similar to US jet
China's first stealth plane spotted on test runs, making China one of three nations with stealth jet technology
Critics claim this is a rip-off of America's F-22 jets, which cost $66.7billion to develop
By Eddie Wrenn
PUBLISHED: 10:42 GMT, 18 May 2012 | UPDATED: 15:22 GMT, 18 May 2012
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2146283/Chinas-stealth-jet-goes-strength-strength-U-S-air-technology-falters-just-Chinese-rip-off.html#ixzz1vGLLi9lr
Surprise! China's Stealth Jets Are 2 Years Ahead of Schedule
By Spencer Ackerman
May 18, 2012 |
Last year, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was greeted in Beijing by China's experimental stealth jet buzzing over his head. Gates didn't sweat it: He proclaimed that the J-20 wouldn't be ready until at least 2020. Oops.
The Pentagon's top China official has now revised that estimate. The J-20, China's first stealth jet, will be operationally ready "no sooner than 2018," David Helvey, deputy secretary of defense for East Asia and Asia Pacific Security Affairs, told reporters Friday.
The new anticipated timetable for the J-20 hardly augurs the end of American military dominance. But it wasn't the only Chinese military development that took the Pentagon by surprise last year.
According to the Pentagon's new report (.pdf) on the Chinese military, China's got three nuclear-powered submarines — an advance that Helvey conceded the U.S. military didn't anticipate. China also fielded an "improved" amphibious assault vessel last year, while the U.S. Marine Corps is having trouble upgrading its own.
And that's just the stuff that the Pentagon can see. Helvey speculated that the Chinese military keeps its research, foreign military acquisitions and nuclear modernization off its books. The report estimates that China's declared $106 billion annual military budget is really more like $120 to $180 billion.
None of that means China's military will overtake America's anytime soon. China won't, for instance, have a global communications and navigation satellite network until 2020, which means it doesn't have a prayer of having a truly global Navy until at least then — even if it starts building its own aircraft carriers. Helvey disclosed that China still has neither built nor acquired any armed drones, and the spy robo-planes it has are the Harpies that Israel sold it nearly a decade ago. And while China may have an amphibious ship, the report says it can't actually invade or hold nearby Taiwan, let alone any target further away or better defended.
At the same time, it's hard not to notice that America's own stealth fleet keeps racking up #fails.
First there's the Air Force's F-22 Raptor. It's choking its pilots, and the Air Force doesn't know why. Gates' successor, Leon Panetta, this week restricted Raptor flights and hurried up an installation of a backup oxygen system onto the jets — which won't be complete until at least 2014. Panetta did not ground the F-22, so the nearly 200 planes will definitely be in Air Force's arsenal ahead of the J-20. But until the mysterious oxygen problems are decisively fixed, pilots may be wary of flying them, and the Air Force leadership may be wary of ordering it into combat.
Then there's the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a family of jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. It's already the most expensive weapons program in human history — current estimates peg the F-35′s lifetime costs over decades at $1.1 trillion-with-a-T — and not a single one of the advanced, powerful stealth jets is in the air. The Marines' variant was so riddled with cost-overruns that it was put on a timeout in 2011; it's off probation now. But testers keep finding expensive engineering flaws with the family of jets, and the Pentagon has given up predicting when it will actually patrol the skies.
The U.S. doesn't want conflict with the Chinese, whose economy is inextricably tied to its own. But it might not see one coming. Especially not if China's stealth planes are advancing while its own are stalling.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/china-stealth-jet/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=facebookclickthru
Er zitten nog wel "oude" motoren in de J-20...die moeten eerst nog worden vervangen door modernere "stealthy" varianten...die heb ik nog niet in een proefmodel gezien...tot die tijd is de J-20 van achteren net zo goed zichtbaar als de F-35 ;)
Citaat van: Elzenga op 19/05/2012 | 14:29 uur
Er zitten nog wel "oude" motoren in de J-20...die moeten eerst nog worden vervangen door modernere "stealthy" varianten...die heb ik nog niet in een proefmodel gezien...tot die tijd is de J-20 van achteren net zo goed zichtbaar als de F-35 ;)
Die Chinezen maken rappe sprongen. Bedenk dat ze 15 jaar geleden nog nauwelijks een rol speelden, en nu kunnen ze (lijkt het erop dat) ze de US regionaal kunnen uitdagen, en zijn opweg om dit wereldwijd te kunnen.
Vertragingen software voor JSF groeiend probleem
Kesteren – De rij met geparkeerde F-35's op de JSF trainingsbasis Eglin groeit gestaag. Trots meldde Lockheed Martin dat er een dozijn is afgeleverd. Maar van daadwerkelijk trainen en zinvol vliegen is geen sprake, want de software is verre van gereed. En dat zal nog jaren duren. Een overzicht van het meest serieuze JSF probleem van de komende jaren: software.
Het kan er indrukwekkend uitzien. Je loopt 's avonds een groot kantoor binnen en op alle bureaus staan prachtige computers met luxe 22 inch beeldschermen. Maar stel je voor, dat voor deze verzameling kantoorapparatuur geen adequate softwaretoepassingen aanwezig zijn. Dan is dat 100% waardeloos en onwerkbaar. En een dergelijk bedrijf is binnen de kortste keren failliet. En voor de luchtmacht is dat niet anders. Op Eglin AFB staat een prachtige en indrukwekkende verzameling "blik" geparkeerd, ter waarde van ruim US$ 2,5 miljard. Maar feitelijk heeft niemand er wat aan, want de software is niet gereed. En het zal nog jaren duren voordat dit wel het geval is. Alle spindoctors en duur betaalde public relations van de defensie industrie ten spijt.
Rapportage Sullivan, US GAO
Op dinsdag 20 maart 2012 verscheen Sullivan van de Amerikaanse rekenkamer voor het House Armed Services Committee. Hij schetste de actuele stand van zaken rond de F-35 en zei dat hij vijf belangrijke zorgen had. Twee van zijn belangrijkste zorgen betroffen de software. Sterker nog: als probleem nummer één noemde hij de on-board missie software.
We citeren hem: "Het beheer en de ontwikkeling van de meer dan 24 miljoen regels software blijft nog steeds een ernstige zorg. Te late software releases hebben het testvliegen en de aanvang van het trainen van vliegers vertraagd. De ontwikkeling van missie kritische systemen, die de JSF zijn belangrijkste gevechtscapaciteit moeten geven blijven achterlopen op schema en zijn risicovol. Tot op heden is slechts voldaan aan 4 procent van de vereisten voor de uiteindelijke missie systemen." Sullivan voegde hier nog aan toe voor zijn hoorders: "Niets ter wereld is zo ingewikkeld als het softwaresysteem van de F-35 met zijn 24 miljoen coderegels en het zal alles vergen van de ontwikkelaars om de F-35 zo te laten werken als ooit beloofd".
Een van zijn andere vijf zorgen betreft de off-board logistieke ondersteuningssoftware. Sinds 2002 wordt hier aan gewerkt, dit kan vrijwel geheel los uitgevoerd worden van de technische ontwikkeling en het testen van het vliegtuig zelf. Maar ook hier ernstige zorgen dus.
Sullivan: "Het autonome logistieke informatie systeem, een basissysteem voor het verbeteren van de vliegtuig beschikbaarheid en het verlagen van de gebruikskosten, is nog steeds niet volledig ontwikkeld. ". Zo gaat hij nog een tijdje verder.
Waarschuwing Pentagon kopstukken Stephen Welby en Edward Greer
In een rapport van maart 2012 van Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for System Engineering Stephen Welby en Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation Edward Greer melden ze weliswaar dat er het laatste jaar is gewerkt om beter te plannen en meer mensen in te zetten om zo "de software ontwikkeling beter af te stemmen op het verwachtingspatroon" (wat een eufemismen!), maar toekomstige tijdige oplevering van nieuwe softwarereleases zal problematisch blijven. We citeren: "Echter, software oplevering zal een uitdaging blijven en waarschijnlijk druk zetten op de bijgestelde planning." Ook de - al vele malen bijgestelde - nieuwe planning gaat niet gehaald worden.
De Block 1B software voor de derde serie (LRIP3) zal drie of meer maanden vertraagd worden vanwege implementatieproblemen. Dit houdt in dat het eerste Nederlandse "testtoestel" bij oplevering slechts uitgerust zal zijn met een uiterst basale softwareversie, en dat nauwelijks zinvol met training gestart kan worden. Waarom was er in februari 2008 zo'n haast, ondanks alle waarschuwingen, om snel te beslissen? Precies ja, omdat dit toestel in 2010 beschikbaar moest zijn!. Het rapport waarschuwt er voor dat vertragingen in Block 1B zullen leiden tot "een cascade" van vertragingen in daarop volgende softwareversies.
JSF baas Venlet in Senaatscommissie over software
Op 8 mei 2012 vond een hoorzitting plaats van de Senate Armed Services Subcommittee inzake onder andere de F-35.
Vice-admiraal David Venlet, hoofd van het JSF Program Office, zei hier dat software zijn top focus heeft. Hij gaf toe dat de Block IIA release achter loopt op schema, maar hij wilde niet toe geven dat achterstand in een eerdere release onvermijdelijk moet leiden tot achterstand in volgende, hierop gebaseerde, releases. We citeren Venlet: "Met name in de Block IIA release, is er vertraging in oplevering van de software nodig voor verdere testvluchten. Dat heeft gevolgen voor de training, maar geen grote gevolgen voor het grote plaatje van het programma, het zet geen druk op Block III".
Venlet is geen softwarespecialist, maar elke softwaredeskundige zal onmiddellijk erkennen dat Stephen Welby en Edward Greer dichter bij de waarheid zitten; vertraging in de eerste versie, zullen leiden tot een cascade van verdere vertragingen in Block II en Block III.
Venlet tegenover verslaggevers, 8 mei 2012
Na afloop van de hoorzitting gaf Vice-admiraal Venlet tegenover verslaggevers toe hoezeer de F-35 afhankelijk is van uitontwikkelde software: " De capacitieiten van dit toestel worden met name tot uitdrukking gebracht door het sensorenpakkeet en dit is geheel afhankelijk van de succesvolle werking van de software die alles samensmeedt en zorgt voor de informatie weergave aan de vlieger en daarbuiten aan andere betrokkenen."
Hij voegde hieraan toe dat er bij het JPO grote zorg bestond over de software ontwikkeling, over de enorme omvang en complexiteit van de klus en tenslotte over de kwaliteit er van. Hierover zei hij: "Het is een kwestie van de kwaliteit van de software, hoe veel moet opnieuw getest worden, en dit kan pas ontdekt worden als je start met de integratie van de krachtige sensoren, dus wanneer je eerst apart werkt met de radar software, met de software systemen voor de electro-optische sensoren, met de communicatie en data link software en je begint dan met al deze systemen samen te brengen, dan leer je wat er aan de hand is, en zo is het eveneens met de regressietesten (het opnieuw testen)." En juist van het integraal testen met alle systemen tegelijk is de F-35A met de huidige Block 1 software nog ver verwijderd. En nu is er al jaren achterstand. Dus straks met Block 2 en Block 3, pas dan komen de echte problemen boven tafel, en zal de achterstand progressief verder oplopen.
Conclusie
Ondanks geruststellende woorden van de fabrikant de afgelopen jaren, elk jaar herhaald, loopt de software ontwikkeling steeds verder uit de pas. De steeds groeiende rij "gereed" zijnde F-35A's op Eglin AFB is hiervan een duidelijke illustratie. Het feit dat commandanten in de US Air Force de datum voor IOC (Initial Operational Capability) inmiddels verschoven hebben naar 2019 is een andere aanwijzing, dat een gevechtsklare F-35A met (feitelijk nog steeds beperkte) Block 3 software slechts een ver droombeeld is. Want het is zelfs te betwijfelen of 2019 haalbaar is.
Auteur: Johan Boeder
JSFNIEUWS/190512-JB/jb
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=794
Gaat er eigenlijk iets wel goed met de intwikkeling van de JSF? Comfortabele stoelen, goede kwaliteit stuurknuppel of buitenlampjes?
Citaat van: Lynxian op 19/05/2012 | 19:38 uur
Gaat er eigenlijk iets wel goed met de intwikkeling van de JSF? Comfortabele stoelen, goede kwaliteit stuurknuppel of buitenlampjes?
De eerste 4%, die andere 96% volgt nog. Echt waar...
Citaat van: Lynxian op 19/05/2012 | 19:38 uur
Gaat er eigenlijk iets wel goed met de intwikkeling van de JSF? Comfortabele stoelen, goede kwaliteit stuurknuppel of buitenlampjes?
In 2025 is het vast een prima kist....
Er zijn momenteel 99 pagina's gevuld met ideen-en, helemaal top, maar bestaat er werkelijk het idee dat er iets met die idee-en gedaan zal worden?
Think small, grow big.
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 19/05/2012 | 19:52 uur
Citaat van: Lynxian op 19/05/2012 | 19:38 uur
Gaat er eigenlijk iets wel goed met de intwikkeling van de JSF? Comfortabele stoelen, goede kwaliteit stuurknuppel of buitenlampjes?
In 2025 is het vast een prima kist....
Heh, tegen 2025 is het ongetwijfeld een superding. Jeweetwel, voor degene die het zich kunnen veroorloven...
Citaat van: Lynxian op 19/05/2012 | 20:28 uur
Heh, tegen 2025 is het ongetwijfeld een superding. Jeweetwel, voor degene die het zich kunnen veroorloven...
Ik laat me graag verrassen wat het apparaat tegen die tijd kost...
Maar maak je niet ongerust, zelfs de vooraankondiging van de wens om een handvol nieuwe Chinooks aan te schaffen levert nu al zo veel kritiek op dat ik met kan voorstellen dat de burger een partijtje cessna's zelfs te veel vindt... :sick:
Citaat van: Lynxian op 19/05/2012 | 19:38 uur
Gaat er eigenlijk iets wel goed met de intwikkeling van de JSF? Comfortabele stoelen, goede kwaliteit stuurknuppel of buitenlampjes?
De bekabeling schijnt nogal goed te zijn.... ;D :angel:
Citaat van: Enforcer op 20/05/2012 | 09:59 uur
De bekabeling schijnt nogal goed te zijn.... ;D :angel:
Made in The Netherlands ...... the best of the best. :big-smile: .. Fokker ELMO hofleverancier voor veel vliegtuig/helcopter-makers, zoals Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Bombardier, Agusta westland, NHI
New China stealth fighter rival to US F-22 Raptor?
Last Updated: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 15:39
Washington: China may be building its own version of next-generation fighter planes, which are touted to have similar capabilities like US' latest breed of super jet fighters, a new report has revealed.
The Pentagon's 2012 annual report revealed that the January 2011 flight test of China's next-generation fighter prototype, a J-20, highlights China's ambition to produce a fighter aircraft that incorporates stealth attributes, advanced avionics, and super-cruise engines.
The report comes a month after a second prototype of the J-20 was reportedly spotted hovering around a Chinese airfield, more than a year and a half after China's only other known prototype made its first public flight.
According to ABC News, the three attributes described by the Pentagon are among the advanced capabilities of a F-22 Raptor, the stealth fighter jet introduced by the US Air Force and manufactured by Lockheed Martin, which has been named as the most sophisticated fighter plane on the planet.
However, currently the entire fleet of F-22s, which cost the US government an estimated USD 79 billion, has been slammed with strict flight restrictions due to safety concerns for pilots.
Although reports suggest that China may not be possessing more than a couple J-20s, a US government report on Chinese weapons systems released last month claimed US intelligence as estimating that at least some J-20s could go combat operational as soon as 2018.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/new-china-stealth-fighter-rival-to-us-f-22-raptor_776333.html
China's first stealth fighter flies ahead of the pack after second prototype takes to the air
By Manoj Joshi
PUBLISHED: 01:29 GMT, 22 May 2012 | UPDATED: 01:29 GMT, 22 May 2012
Even as the government has announced a two year delay in the acquisition of the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter (FGFA), a US report has said the Chinese equivalent, the J-20, could enter squadron service two years earlier than expected.
In January 2011, when the J-20 was revealed through pictures of Chinese bloggers coinciding with the visit of the then US defense secretary Robert Gates, American officials said the Chinese fighter would not be ready for operational use till 2020.
Taking to the air: China's J-20 looks like the US F-22 Raptor
But on Friday, in the course of a briefing on a Pentagon report on Chinese military power, David Helvey, deputy secretary of defense for East Asia and Asia Pacific Security Affairs, said the two-angled tailfin fighter, which looks like the US F-22 Raptor, would be operationally ready 'no sooner than 2018'.
Also last week, Chinese bloggers posted the picture of a second copy of the stealth fighter undertaking a test flight at the research facility at the city of Chengdu.
More...Delhi government okays key road works with eye on polls
Newlywed couples must register marriage within 60 days or pay fine under new laws
Mental health risks and other illnesses haunt rural migrants
Cut to New Delhi. In February, during the Aero India show, defence minister A.K. Antony said at a briefing that the difficulties in joining the programme were over and that India had signed a deal with the Russians, 'and we will see the FGFA inducted by 2017'.
But last Monday, his deputy M.M. Pallam Raju told Parliament, 'The fifth generation aircraft is scheduled to be certified by 2019, after which the series production will start.'
The US is still vastly superior to the Chinese military. But New Delhi cannot afford such delays. Actually, given the complexity of the programme, it would be optimistic for India to assume that even the 2019 deadline will be met.
The problem, however, is that the IAF inventory is becoming obsolete so fast that even with the planned induction of 126 Rafale fighters, there will be huge gaps in its force profile through the next 10 years.
As for the US, though the F- 22 has been flying for more than a decade, it has been having serious problems of late.
Its faulty oxygen system has been choking pilots and has led to some crashes.
A fix has been worked out but the installation will take another two years.
Its successor, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is plagued by time and cost overruns.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2147908/Chinas-stealth-fighter-flies-ahead-pack-second-prototype-takes-air.html#ixzz1vZqgxdAp
Ambassador Gitenstein: Romanian military has to get to next-generation fighters; the US wants to help
Monday, May 21, 2012
US ambassador in Bucharest Mark Gitenstein says there has been a perennial discussion between the Romanian and the US governments over Romania's acquiring F16 fighters, and a problem in this sense is that the airplane is expensive, but they should not have to be brand new, as they can also be refurbished.
'The original request for the United State to consider selling F16s came from the Romanian Government. This has been a perennial discussion between our two governments. The real question here is one of cost. It is extremely expensive. A brand new F16 costs about 100 million US dollars, and the question is how can we put ageing MG21s out of existence, and I agree with the assessment of the Romanian military that it needs to move to a next-generation fighter and we want to help Romania get there. But they may not be brand new planes; it may be some combination of old planes and new planes, but the important thing to remember is that the transaction is really a transaction with the US Air Force and its training programmes, and its integration programmes in terms of technology. That is what we are working on: how can we begin to select and train Romanian pilots to move to this next generation of aircraft, and what we need as soon as possible is to get airplanes available because we cannot begin to train the pilots; our programme will not start training the pilots unless there are planes for them to fly. They may not be brand new airplanes; they could be refurbished airplanes,' Gitenstein told TVR Info channel in an interview on Thursday evening.
He underscored that refurbished airplanes can be a solution.
' There are refurbished airplanes that have 95 percent of their capability brand new. They flew in the no-fly zone in Libya. I was talking the other day to one of the top people at Lockheed Martin who pointed out to me that he flew for twenty years and he never flew an F16, so flying old or new F16s is not the issue; the issue is beginning to train the Romanian pilots and getting the planes in position so they can be used. Otherwise, if you are beginning training the pilots and they do not have an airplane to fly, then the training is all waste,' said Gitenstein.
Asked whether the discussions over the acquisition of the F16 fighters are frozen, Gitenstein said, 'There have been discussions ongoing ever since I have been here. They are not really frozen. They are not more frozen than anything else is as a result of changing government here.'
http://actmedia.eu/daily/ambassador-gitenstein-romanian-military-has-to-get-to-next-generation-fighters-the-us-wants-to-help/40069
India inducts 15 MiG-29Ks for carrier operations
May 21, 2012
Fifteen new Russian-made MiG-29K fighter jets have been inducted for Indian Navy carrier-borne operations, Indian Defence Minister, A.K. Antony told the country's Parliament.
These aircraft will operate from the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, formerly called the Admiral Gorshkov when in Russian service, which is planned for induction in December.
Antony also said a contract has been concluded to acquire an additional 29 MiG-29Ks to strengthen the air combat capability of the Navy.
India placed an order for 16 MiG-29Ks for $650 million in 2004 to be used on the Russian-made Vikramaditya. A repeat order for $1.5 billion was placed in early 2010 to purchase the 29 additional MiG-29Ks. The Vikramaditya is undergoing a refit in Russia.
A trainer version of the MiG-29K, which was part of the aircraft carrier deal, crashed June 23, 2011, in southern Russia, killing its two-member crew. Although no details are known of the probe into the crash. the finalization of the contract for additional MiG-29Ks suggests Indian officials are satisfied with the aircraft, said an Indian Defence Ministry official.
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/05/21/india_inducts_15_mig-29ks_for_carrier_operations_15801.html
Russian air force to order Su-25 replacement
Russia's air force will acquire a new ground attack aircraft similar in concept to the Sukhoi Su-25, but has dropped plans to field an armed version of the Yakovlev Yak-130 jet/combat trainer.
"This new type of ground attack aircraft has been included in the state arms procurement programme," says Col Gen Alexander Zelin, an aide to Russian defence minister Anatoly Serdyukov and until May the commander of its air force. "It will be put in service by 2020."
The new aircraft will be equipped with an advanced radar, feature elements of stealth technology and also be able to use short runways. It will replace the modernised Su-25SM. Moscow plans to upgrade 80 of its Su-25s to the improved standard, and has so far received more than 30.
The Russian military has abandoned plans to develop a light attack aircraft based on the Yak-130, as Zelin says a prototype dubbed the Yak-131 did not demonstrate a high enough level of protection for its pilot.
Meanwhile, Zelin says the air force will receive the first batch of prototypes of its Sukhoi PAK-FA/T-50 fighter for performance testing in 2013.
"The work on the fifth-generation fighter is going according to schedule. The third prototype has joined the testing programme and a fourth is being built."
The T-50 made its first flight in January 2010 and Zelin has previously said 14 of the aircraft would be involved in testing by 2015.
In a separate development, the air force has received its first three upgraded Antonov An-124-100M transports. The service plans to have about 10 more aircraft modified to the new configuration, in addition to buying up to 10 new-build -300 variants with an increased payload of up to 150,000kg (330,000lb).
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russian-air-force-to-order-su-25-replacement-372103/
Turkey can be as significant a production base in aeronautics as it is in automotives
Balkans Business News Correspondent - 22.05.2012
Turkey can be as significant a production base in aeronautics as it is in automotives, Turkey's Defense Industries Undersecretary Murad Bayar said yesterday, at a press conference as the Global Industrial Cooperation conference 2012 kicked off.
Touching on the benefits of Turkey's participation in Lockheed Martin's F35 Joint Strike Fighter manufacturing program, he said the industry had taken nearly $8 billion business share to date, Hurriyet Daily reports
http://www.balkans.com/open-news.php?uniquenumber=145792
Je moet het de Turken nageven: dat doen ze, tot nu toe, slimmer dan de Nederlanders
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 22/05/2012 | 09:20 uur
Je moet het de Turken nageven: dat doen ze, tot nu toe, slimmer dan de Nederlanders
Zij investeren ook erg in hun defensie ! en dat trekt ook voor toeleveranciers voor opdrachten en de wisselwerking hiervan.
Voor wat, hoort wat. ... compensatie van gegeven opdrachten.
en misschien stellen ze zich ook wat harder op, arabieren metaliteit ?
Citaat van: Harald op 22/05/2012 | 09:33 uur
Zij investeren ook erg in hun defensie ! en dat trekt ook voor toeleveranciers voor opdrachten en de wisselwerking hiervan.
Voor wat, hoort wat. ... compensatie van gegeven opdrachten.
Tja, maar moet dat heel veel uitmaken? NL is eea toegezegd, en die toezegging moet worden nagekomen.
Citaat van: Harald op 22/05/2012 | 09:33 uur
en misschien stellen ze zich ook wat harder op, arabieren metaliteit ?
Ik denk dat Turken zelf in ieder geval niet vinden dat ze een arabieren mentaliteit hebben.
Selex nears AESA radar delivery for Gripen
By: Craig Hoyle Edinburgh
Selex Galileo is within weeks of delivering a new version of its Raven ES-05 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for integration with Saab's two-seat demonstrator for the next-generation Gripen E/F.
Now in the final stages of testing at the Finmeccanica company's Edinburgh site in Scotland, the sensor will be displayed along with the Gripen at July's Farnborough air show.
"We will begin developmental test flights after Farnborough," says Bob Mason, Selex Galileo's senior vice-president marketing and sales, radar and advanced targeting. The equipment will also support evaluation of the latest AESA standard by pilots from Switzerland's air force and Armasuisse procurement agency later this year. The nation is negotiating a planned 22-aircraft order for the Gripen E/F, following a selection decision taken in November 2011.
Mason says the radar developer has a strong business case linked to the Raven, as Sweden is also expected to acquire the sensor as part of future Gripen purchases or during upgrades to its in-service examples. "It will be much more substantial than the 22 aircraft for the Swiss," he adds.
Another element of the Swedish fighter's next evolution is also currently in the advanced stages of development, with the first Skyward-G infrared search and track sensor due to be delivered for testing at the end of this year or in early 2013. Selex also plans to offer pod-housed versions of the equipment for integration with additional aircraft types.
Meanwhile, work on the Euroradar Captor-E AESA for the Eurofighter Typhoon is also proceeding, with EADS company Cassidian acting as design authority for the new array.
"We are cracking on, with hardware coming together," Mason says. The first test radar should be delivered early in the second quarter of 2013, and flown by Eurofighter partner company BAE Systems on a Typhoon before the end of that year.
The design retains an upgraded processor and receiver from the mechanically-scanned Captor-M, but adds a new array and an electrically-steered repositioner which will increase the sensor's field of regard by +/-100˚.
"The gain in performance is well worth any minor degradation in mean-time between failure," Mason says. The AESA will deliver enhanced detection performance in air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, plus a synthetic aperture radar mapping function.
Mason says discussions with the four core Eurofighter partner nations are continuing, and believes that "those that have money will join the [AESA] programme in the near future". A production contract could come by mid-2013, with deliveries to commence from around 2015.
The Captor-E will be available as an option for Tranche 3A aircraft to be built for Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, and as a retrofit option for their Tranche 2 aircraft, along with those of Saudi Arabia. The enhancement is also being offered to other potential export customers for the Typhoon, including Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/selex-nears-aesa-radar-delivery-for-gripen-372125/
Lockheed says F-22 problems won't plague F-35
Jean Peladeau, QMI Agency
First posted: Friday, May 18, 2012 05:37 PM EDT | Updated: Friday, May 18, 2012 05:44 PM EDT
OTTAWA - A problem plaguing the breathing apparatus of the F-22 fighter jet should not affect pilot safety in the F-35, says Lockheed-Martin, which makes both planes.
Some U.S air force pilots are refusing to fly the F-22 Raptor saying the problem that affects the F-22 pilot oxygen generator system can cause loss of consciousness while in flight.
Subcontractor Honeywell makes the oxygen system in the F-22. It will also produce the oxygen generation system to be used in the F-35, the fighter jet that the Canadian government is considering to purchase as a replacement for the CF-18s.
"The F-35 program has leveraged the lessons learned from F-22 development to enhance the F-35 across all sub-systems," said Lockheed spokesman Joe DellaVedova.
Differences in the performance characteristics of each aircraft can affect the use of the breathing system, the U.S. Air Force says. The F-22 can fly at twice the altitude and speed of the F-35.
"The F-35 was not designed to operate at F-22 altitudes," said DellaVedova.
The problem with the F-22 oxygen system might be linked to the special attributes of the F-22 and not the system itself, says the air force.
"We're realizing that we operate (the F-22) differently than we operate any of our other fighter aircraft," said U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Janet Wolfenbarger. "We execute maneuvers that are high G and at high altitude."
Two U.S. Air Force pilots told the U.S news magazine show 60 Minutes earlier this month that the oxygen generator in F-22 fighter jets does not give them enough air during high altitude maneuvers.
The U.S. fighter pilots allege the system is not dependable and could cause a pilot to lose consciousness. This phenomenon is known as hypoxia and can be fatal.
"I am not comfortable flying the F-22 right now," U.S. Major Jeremy Gordon, who flies with the Virginia Guard, told 60 Minutes.
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/18/lockheed-says-f-22-problems-wont-plague-f-35
F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On, Part 2: The Jobs Mirage (deel 1 van part 2)
(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published May 21, 2012)
By Giovanni de Briganti
Given the contractual arrangements of the F-35 program, it is not clear how many foreign subcontractors will be able to win production orders and – more importantly – whether any of these contracts will actually generate the work-load and profits anticipated by foreign governments. (L-M photo)
PARIS --- Most F-35 partner governments have, at various times, tried to justify joining the F-35 program by the production work the program will provide to their industry, and the high-tech jobs this work will create and support.
However, as for the program's technical promises reviewed in Part 1, ('Fifth-Generation' and Other Myths)the facts are hidden behind a P.R. smokescreen.
The truth is that no partner country has a guaranteed work-share on the program. Being an F-35 partner only gives the right to compete for contracts, with no guarantees of winning, and there is no entitlement to any work at all, however much a country has invested, except for major partners Italy and the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, prospective subcontractors are expected to make all the necessary investments needed to compete for production orders, again with no guarantee of actually winning any work. Finally, companies bidding for work are expected to assume all foreign exchange risk. More on this below.
All of this leaves program prime contractor Lockheed Martin with the best of all worlds,as it is able to award subcontracts to the lowest bidder, and to then transfer work to a cheaper source, or to the country with the best currency exchange rate, while itself benefiting from US dollar-denominated contracts awarded by the Pentagon.
Subcontractors from the customer nations, on the other hand, are much worse off: heavy investments, low profit margins, one- or two-year contracts without any guarantee of renewal, and payments made in US dollars, irrespective of which currency they operate in.
Such is the industrial work-sharing arrangement that Lockheed and the US government have succeeded in foisting on their F-35 partners in the name of efficiency and affordability. This one-sided arrangement has replaced long-standing principles such as "just return" and direct offset contracts that were used in previous international projects, like the European F-16 program, and which are still used in export contracts.
1. No guaranteed work, no offsets, no net return?
Contrary to what some partner governments have stated or implied, there is no contractual obligation for foreign partners to buy the F-35 in order to participate in its production: financially contributing to development is enough.
Conversely, buying the aircraft is no guarantee of winning any production work, either.
In return for having contributed several hundred million dollars to F-35 development, the Netherlands (Tier 2) and the five Tier 3 partner countries have obtained a single privilege: their industry is allowed to compete and bid for production work.
There are only two exceptions to this basic rule: Britain (and BAE Systems), as the only foreign Tier 1 partner, is guaranteed a major share of production work while Italy, the second-largest foreign partner, has obtained the right to establish (at its own cost) a Final Assembly and Check-Out (FACO) facility which will be operated by Alenia Aermacchi, its main aerospace contractor. This, however, does not give Alenia any special privilege when it comes to bidding for production work.
None of the other partners, nor their industries, have any guarantee of winning work, because contracts will simply go to the lowest compliant bidder. This is a crucial aspect of the program that most partner governments have glossed over or ignored in their eagerness to highlight the billions of dollars of orders they will generate for their industry. The truth is far less compelling, and failure to win contracts can always be explained away as due to a company's lack of competitiveness.
2.Pay to work?
Because F-35 production contracts are awarded to the company offering the lowest price, there is an obvious incentive for these bidders to invest in the most efficient machinery and work-force to lower their production costs and thus improve their chances of winning production work.
This can lead to heavy costs and to financial imbalances, as one Australian company which went bankrupt waiting for delayed Lockheed orders found out to its expense.
Production Parts, a Melbourne Airport West company which employed 85 people, spent A$6.25 million on equipment needed to fill JSF contracts that were to be worth more than $40 million, the Canberra Times reported on Sept. 22, 2011, and was considering doubling its staff to 170 in expectation of even more production work.
However, the company went into administration on September 2, 2011 because the investment proved too heavy for the amount of F-35-related work it finally obtained, although the strength of the Australian dollar and the slow-down in defense spending also contributed, the newspaper said.
While Production Parts was a small company which might have been overly optimistic as to its financial capacities, contractual problems also affect bigger firms.
Italy's Alenia Aermacchi, for example, had invested to prepare for the production of 1,251 F-35 wing assemblies, but had only received a firm order from Lockheed Martin for 100 pre-production ship-sets. This meant is stood to lose $10 million on just this initial order, as it was unable to recoup its investment on the only contract which Lockheed was willing to guarantee.
"For this reason, the Defence Administration, as part of its industrial policy brief, intervened to ensure that Lockheed increased its commitment to a level that allowed the Italian company to obtain a necessary return on its substantial initial investment," Lt. Col. Antonio Zuliani, chief spokesman for Italy's National Armaments director, told defense-aerospace.com April 20. "This issue was finally resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both companies," he added.
Zuliani denied a report that Alenia Aermacchi was required to make a substantial cash payment to Lockheed Martin because it was unable to produce parts at the price that had been agreed originally. "No such penalty exists in the [F-35] contracts," he said.
The existence of cash penalties for non-achievement of contractual prices was also denied by Lockheed F-35 spokesman Michael J. Rein, who said in an April 19 e-mail statement said that "Lockheed Martin did not request a "penalty payment" from Alenia Aermacchi," and that none would be requested in future.
Rein added that "Lockheed Martin awards contracts on a competitive, best value basis to ensure worldwide industrial participation for the global fleet expected to be more than 3,000 aircraft. All foreign F-35 production contracts are bid in U.S. dollars. Past performance is taken into account as we prepare, develop and negotiate future contracts and re-bids."
US dollar's decline impacts competitiveness
The first contractual anomaly is that all F-35 production subcontracts are drawn up in US dollars, with no compensatory clause in case of major currency variations during the contract's duration.
Given the wild gyrations in the exchange value of the US dollar over the past decade compared to customer's currencies (Australian and Canadian dollars, Euro, UK sterling, etc.), a foreign company winning a contract in US dollars could well end up losing money if the US dollar weakens significantly. And exchange rate variations are inevitable over the F-35 program's planned 30-year life.
So, while for example a British company might win with the lowest bid when the pound sterling is weak compared to the dollar, it could well lose the work if a rising sterling made its widget more expensive than one manufactured by an American, Australian, Canadian or Danish competitor.
An example can illustrate the perverse effects of exchange rate variations.In April 2002, one US dollar was worth 1.13 euros, while last month – 10 years later – it is only worth 0.75 euros, a drop of about 34%.
So, all things being equal, a part that cost 10 euros (then worth $8.85) to make in 2002 now costs about $13.3 when converted at today's rate, which makes it all but impossible for foreign firms to remain competitive with US industry.
And, since Lockheed awards orders on "a competitive, best value basis," a company that suddenly finds that its prices are increased as the dollar's value drops stands to lose its contracts or to lose bids on new contracts.
While Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Norway have most energetically used the jobs/work angle to rationalize their continued commitment to the program, it is in fact for Italy that this aspect is most critical.
Running the future F-35 Final Assembly and Check-Out (FACO) facility being built at Cameri air base, near Novara, is the only military business that will support its troubled aerospace major, Alenia Aermacchi, as work on the Tornado and Typhoon programs winds down.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/135384/f_35-reality-check-part-2%3A-the-jobs-mirage-and-other-stories.html
F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On, Part 2: The Jobs Mirage (deel 2 van part 2)
he case of Italy: High-volume, low-margin?
To date, Italy has invested about 1.8 billion euros in the F-35's development, and another 650-850 million euros (estimates vary) to build the FACO facility which, although to be operated by Alenia Aermacchi, is owned by the state. However, despite this investment, Italian industry is not guaranteed any F-35 production work unless its prices are competitive with those of other countries and of Lockheed Martin.
This was stressed by Gen. DomenicoEsposito, Italy's director-general of air force armaments, during a Feb. 1, 2012 hearing(in Italian only—Ed.)by the Chamber of Deputies' defense committee.
"Alenia must remain competitive; it simply cannot produce at a higher cost than Lockheed Martin. If Lockheed Martin, which is now producing probably its 50th wing assembly, is far enough [along the learning curve] that it can reduce its production costs, we have to keep up with them" or lose the work.
Esposito added that, as of early 2012, Italian firms had won orders worth $539 million, of which $222 million in 2011. "If we maintain our commitment to the program, this type of work, at the end of the day, will have an estimated value of up to $14 billion for Italy" provided Italian industry remains competitive.
But neither Esposito nor his boss, MoD Secretary-General and National Armaments Director Gen. Claudio Debertolis, were able to provide clear answers to committee members who wanted to know how much of the work intended for Italian industry would be production, rather than assembly, and what profit margins it will allow.
"Assembling costly parts does not mean there is a high added value," committee member EttoreRosato said during the hearing. "There are companies with a very large turnover and very small margins, and I wouldn't want Italy to assemble very costly parts on which it would have very small returns."
Whatever the ultimate results, it is clear thata lot of water will pass under the bridge before Italy will be able to recoup,through its industry's subcontracting and assembly work,the almost 3 billion euros it has so far contributed to the program – even without counting the cost of actually buying the aircraft.
In a second,follow-on hearing on Feb. 7, Gen. Debertolis told MPs that "We now have a problem with Lockheed Martin, which is insisting on very low costs, much lower than what Alenia can sustain, because we are thinking short-term. Our job will be to force Lockheed to committ itself, from the very beginning, to guaratee Alenia's prices over the entire production run. This will allow Alenia to invest even if this means posting a loss because it will be sure of recouping its investment in the short term, and to post a profit in the longer term."
"If there were no [industrial] returns on the wings, there would be a big problem, that would fast become a political one. We are however resolving the question, and work is continuing in the meantime," Debertolis said.
Obviously, the same considerations also apply to Australian, Canadian, Danish, Dutch Norwegian and Turkish companies, but the effects will be even more perverse as these countries have no guaranteed work allocation similar to Italy's FACO facility.
Great expectations getting smaller
The continued slippages in F-35 production are also playing havoc with subcontractor amortization plans and, thus, their cash-flow. Alluding to this problem, one Australian industry executive quoted by the Canberra Times remarked that ''Production Parts could be 'the canary in the mine'.....Having a contract is one thing, but when the orders don't come through there is no cash flow."
F-35 contractors finance their investments in the expectation that contracts – and related payments – will arrive at given dates. When contracts are delayed by several years, the companies have no incoming cash to pay down their investments, and this causes cash-flow difficulties and, in the case of Precision Parts, bankruptcy.
A related difficulty is the constant reduction of the size of Low-Rate Initial Production batches and their stretching out. The latest such decision, announced in February as part of the FY2013 budget request, reduces F-35 procurement by 13 aircraft in FY13, and by a total of 179 aircraft between FY13 and FY17.
This means that any company that had invested for F-35 production in the expectation of receiving orders and payments for work on those 179 aircraft now finds itself with proportionally lower payments, stretched out over a longer period. Its bills coming due have been neither postponed nor reduced, however.
In short, a sure recipe for failure, especially for the small and medium enterprises that Australia, Canada and the European partners have enticed into joining the F-35 industrial program with the promise of profitable work and technology transfer.
Governments, however, are already beginning to back-pedal on their promises. The Canadian government has now revised downwards the size of the golden F-35 pot it promised in terms of industrial benefits.
Industry Canada now estimates Canadian companies are eligible to bid on as much as US$9.8 billion in contracts — down from an estimate of US$12 billion just last year, The Canadian Press reported May 4. However, none of these figures are guaranteed, the Opposition New Democratic defense spokesman stressed in the same article.
But a senior government official told a parliamentary committee that "this projection assumes the contracts are renewed throughout the nearly 50 years the fighter is expected to be in service," the newspaper reported.
To date, a decade into the program, Canadian companies have signed US$435 million in F-35 contracts, the paper added, of the C$12 billion the government expects its industry to win.
Canada's Auditor-General, in his celebrated April 3 report, voiced "concerns about the basis of the projections of industrial benefits for Canadian companies [as] Projections made by the prime contractors were (and continue to be) extrapolated over the entire production period."
The report adds that the far greater share of projected benefits "are based on a combination of opportunities....that are available through competition to companies from partner countries," but they"are the least certain, since Canadian companies must compete against companies from other partner countries."
The Auditor-General also noted that prior to signing on to the program, senior decision-makers were warned "that industrial benefits could not be guaranteed under the (Joint Strike Fighter) program."
No offsets for partners, only for OTS buyers
What all this means is that F-35 partner nations have given up their right to industrial offsets in exchange for the right to bid on contracts their industry might, or might not win, and on which it might, or might not, make money, and then only if currency exchange rates remain favorable to them.
Given that very high offset rates are normal for a large fighter purchases – India and Switzerland have both requested 100% of the contract value for thefighter purchases they are now negotiating – it is clear that the F-35 partner nations accepted a very bad deal, since it is arithmetically obvious that none will be able to offset its F-35 purchase by anywhere near 100%.
This is in stark contrast to the favorable contractual terms that off-the-shelf buyers of the F-35 are expected to win, and which are downplayed in official announcements.
This very point was made by the EdmondoCirielli, chairman of the Italian lower house's defense committee during the same Feb. 1, 2012 hearing. "The criterion of "best value" could be seen as damaging our industry: while with Eurofighter it had an obligatory return in production work, now it has to fight to win work. This leads us to wonder if, from an economic point of view, it would not have been better to buy the aircraft off-the-shelf, as Japan is doing."
While Lockheed Martin downplays industrial aspects of off-the-shelf sales, offsets that are forbidden to program partners are, in fact, allowed for off-the-shelf buyers.
In announcing Israel's signing of a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) for an initial batch of 20 F-35Cs, the CEO of Israel's Defense Ministry, Maj. Gen. (res.) UdiShani, said "the deal also holds tremendous importance for the national economy through the manufacturer's commitment to purchase billions of dollars' worth of equipment from Israeli industries," according to an Oct. 7, 2010 press release by the Israel Defense Force.
In fact, Israel's F-35 deal is doubly sweet: first of all, it pays for the aircraft with US military aid, so at no cost to its economy, and in addition it gets the US to buy billions of dollars' worth of equipment in exchange.
Japan, the second off-the-shelf buyer to date, has decided to buy an initial 42 F-35s for $10 billion. The DSCA's announcement of the deal on May 1, 2012 states "There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale," but a related, Dec. 21, 2011 statement by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) says that the company "has been selected by Air Staff Office, Japanese Ministry of Defense, as a potential domestic contractor to participate in manufacturing and after-servicing of Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF)'s F-X...through license production and operational support." Again, this is a better and more certain deal than offered to the industries of partner nations.
Conclusion
As explained in great detail in the two parts of this article, the F-35 does not back up any of the three most common claims made by partner governments to justify their decision to buy the aircraft:
1. Backers claim that only the F-35 has "fifth-generation capabilities," including stealth and data fusion, that will ensure air supremacy in the future.
In fact, even if its development is a complete success, most of the "revolutionary" capabilities the F-35 will bring to the party in a decade or so, when it finally enters service, already exist. Its advances will mostly be a question of degree, and not the revolution that its backers allege.
And, if the F-22 is anything to go by, the F-35's sensors and electronics will be so outdated by the time it enters service that it will require several very costly upgrades. As the latest estimate for bringing the F-22 fleet up to scratch is over $8 billion – and that's for only part of the 150 aircraft now in service -- the mind truly boggles at how much it might cost to upgrade 400 or 500 early production F-35s.
2. Backers also claim that only the F-35 allows full interoperability with US forces and within future allied coalitions.
The inanity of using interoperability to justify buying the F-35 was clearly stated by NATO's supreme allied commander transformation, Gen. StephaneAbrial, a former chief of staff of the French air force, when he testified before the Canadian House of Commons Defence Committee on May 3.
According to a May 4 report published by Canada's Postmedia news, Abrial told the committee that "We do not advocate a single type of aircraft, single type of ships, single type of rifles....We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that's not our goal." Abrial said interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield, not flying the same aircraft.
3. The third most common justification used by partner nations is job creation: buying the F-35 guarantees highly profitable, high-tech work for the buyer's national aerospace industry, they claim.
As this overview makes clear, the F-35 is the only international aircraft program in recent history to guarantee no industrial benefits whatsoever to its partners. In reality, partner nations have given up the certainty of license-production and direct or indirect offsets in exchange for the chance of bidding on some contracts.
Never has the folly of giving up a bird in the hand for the faint prospect of many in the bush been so obvious. This is a further reason why soldiers should stick to soldiering, instead of thinking they can negotiate international agreements, and why politicians should take military recommendations on equipment with a fistful of salt.
Taxpayers and aerospace workers in the F-35 partner nations will now have ample opportunity, over the next 30 years, to appreciate just how good a deal their governments negotiated.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/135384/f_35-reality-check-part-2%3A-the-jobs-mirage-and-other-stories.html
F-35: Slowing Down Production Makes No Sense
Steven Bucci
May 22, 2012 at 5:30 pm
The transparency of some anti-defense ploys boggles the imagination. The most recent one has to do with the production rates of the new F-35 multi-role fighter.
This aircraft will replace several of the worn-out fighters of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps that are sometimes older than the pilots who fly them. The multi-role abilities of the F-35 will benefit the readiness and war fighting capabilities of all the branches of service and will markedly improve national security at a time when threats are increasing in number and magnitude.
The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), as the F-35 is known, is designed to maximize both capability and survivability. Its production methodology was developed to allow for faster fielding of the aircraft and calls for incremental improvements in the design as early models roll of the line. Safety is not sacrificed, and the process known as "concurrency" puts the best available plane in the hands of the warfighters as soon as possible. It also allows for cuts in cost per copy as efficiencies build upon one another.
Unfortunately, forces that never wanted the nation's pilots to have this aircraft in the first place are now trying to pull a bait and switch. They are saying that there is too much concurrency, and they want to slow down production of the JSF. This would drive up the cost per unit of each JSF and probably force some of our allies to cut the number of planes they have ordered. These cuts would further drive up cost, creating a vicious cycle of cost increases.
The clear goal here is to slow down production and drive up costs in a spiral that will eventually allow opponents of military modernization and proper readiness to call for killing the program altogether. Congress should not allow this to happen.
The U.S. Air Force has already cut back its requests to the bare bones of readiness. To reduce the fleet further, slow the rate of production, and eventually kill the JSF in the name of artificially escalated cost overruns is irresponsible.
Rather than give into this sneak attack, the Department of Defense should push up the rate of production. Congress should support them, protect the F-35 program, and give U.S. forces the aircraft they need to defend the nation.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/22/f-35-slowing-down-production-makes-no-sense/
Russia's military aircraft industry: overview and outlook
May 22, 2012
The Voice of Russia
What are the leading tendencies of the Russian aviation industry for the next ten years - an expert ponders.
During the round table discussion regarding the current state and the process of re-equipment and the prospects of the Russian Air Force Konstantin Makienko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, presented his report on the prospects of producing military aviation equipment for export and the use by the Russian Air Force.
The leading tendency of the next ten years will be the reorientation of the aviation industry from exports to the internal market. According to Makienko, it is linked to the drastic increase of the volume of aviation equipment purchased for the Russian Air Force as well as the expected concurrent drop in the external demand.
The drop in exports will be primarily driven by the end of the Chinese purchase orders and the saturation of the Indian market where the Su-30 MKI program has passed its peak. Besides India, the demand will center around South-East Asia, but naturally that size of that export will be quite smaller than the procurement for the Russian Air Force and the Naval aviation, as well as the huge Chinese and Indian contracts of the late 1990s- early 2000s.
At the same time in the event the necessary political decisions are made and the escalation of the Il-476 project Russia's reentry to the Chinese market is possible. For that purpose the Chinese Air Force and Navy should be offered attack aircraft with a high anti-ship potential, such as modernized Tu-22M3 and Su-32/34. Besides that, if the Il-476 project shows positive dynamics in the next couple of years, one can hope for the restoration of the 2005 contract to purchase 38 Il-76/78 that was not fulfilled due to a number of financial and production related reasons.
The drop in external demand will be well compensated by the procurement for the Russian Air Force and the Navy. Over the last few months, orders have been placed for 92 Su-34 fighter-bombers, 24 MiG-29K carrier-based fighter aircraft and 30 Su-30 CM multipurpose fighter aircraft. According to some sources, the State Rearmament Program 2020 envisions the acquisition of 600 tactical aviation aircraft.
In such circumstances producing a long-term strategy of developing the aviation industry after 2020 when the current 2020 program expires, becomes a matter of principle. With the current state of things in 2020 Russia will have only two competitive products with a good commercial potential – that is the T-50 heavy fighter and a family of trainer/light attack aircraft based on Yak-130. It appears that the development of the Russian aviation industry during this planning period will largely depend on the ability to solve two main tasks in the near future. The first task is to develop a competitive product (for the period after 2020) in the segment of commercial aviation. The second task is to develop a relatively simple and inexpensive combat aviation complex, or a «light» fighter plane that would be able to effectively compete with F-35.
First published in The Voice of Russia
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/05/22/russias_military_aircraft_industry_overview_and_outlook_15816.html
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 23/05/2012 | 07:54 uur
F-35: Slowing Down Production Makes No Sense
of zal de achterliggende reden zijn, dat de sofware zover achter licht op schema en dat ze in de software ontwikkeling en intergratie zoveel moeilijkheden tegen komen, dat ; als ze nu de F-35 vol in productie doen in de fabrieken, dat er geen goede software is om er mee te gaan vliegen en dat ze met deze toestellen + huidige software niet bij de squadrons/eenheden kunnen gaan vliegen voor het opwerken naar combat readyness.
Sotfware problemen zal ook zeker effect hebben op de mate van je test-mogelijkheden, dus hierin zal weer vertraging komen. ... dus ook weer voordat eenheden Combat Ready zijn.
Citaat van: Harald op 23/05/2012 | 09:07 uur
of zal de achterliggende reden zijn, dat de sofware zover achter licht op schema en dat ze in de software ontwikkeling en intergratie zoveel moeilijkheden tegen komen, dat ; als ze nu de F-35 vol in productie doen in de fabrieken, dat er geen goede software is om er mee te gaan vliegen en dat ze met deze toestellen + huidige software niet bij de squadrons/eenheden kunnen gaan vliegen voor het opwerken naar combat readyness.
Sotfware problemen zal ook zeker effect hebben op de mate van je test-mogelijkheden, dus hierin zal weer vertraging komen. ... dus ook weer voordat eenheden Combat Ready zijn.
Ik hou het maar op een combinatie van factoren. Feit is natuurlijk wel (voor zover publiekelijk bekend) dat de software een zeer grote vertragende factor is.
Gezien het belang van het progamma mag je toch verwachten dat deze problemen een heel eind zijn verholpen tegen 2019/2020.
Hoe zit het met de software voor de Gripen NG? Wordt daar nog veel aan veranderd, of zal er relatief snel een werkende NG van de band aflopen?
Australia – EA-18G Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Aircraft Modification Kits
WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia for 12 EA-18G Modification Kits to convert F/A-18F aircrafts to the G configuration and associated parts, equipment, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $1.7 billion.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 12 EA-18G Modification Kits to convert F/A-18F aircrafts to G configuration, (34) AN/ALQ-99F(V) Tactical Jamming System Pods, (22) CN-1717/A Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS), (22) R-2674(C)/A Joint Tactical Terminal Receiver (JTTR) Systems, (30) LAU-118 Guided Missile Launchers, Command Launch Computer (CLC) for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government (USG) and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.
The estimated cost is $1.7 billion.
Australia is an important ally in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia's efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations have made a significant impact to regional political and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.
The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability in current and future coalition efforts. Australia will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractor will be The Boeing Corporation in St. Louis, Missouri. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/135423/australia-to-pay-%241.7-billion-for-12-ea_18g-modification-kits.html
Saudi Arabia signs trainer aircraft deal
London, United Kingdom - "A real manna from heaven for BAE and Pilatus"
(WAPA) - Saudi Arabia will purchase 22 BAE Systems Hawk aircraft and 55 Pilatus PC-21 turboprop airplanes. The country has signed a contract of approximately 1.6 billion pounds.
Saudi Arabia has a military fleet composed of modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-15 Strike Eagle and now needs to support operations by an advanced training of its pilots. Currently the country's trainer inventory includes 45 aged Hawk 65s (the oldest of which were delivered in 1988). In addition, Riyad also flies 47 Pilatus PC-9s.
As a consequence, the delivery of the PC-21 basic trainers will start in 2014, with the new Hawks to follow from 2016. Obviously, this contract also includes simulators, associated equipment, maintenance and the training of Saudi personnel.
This contract is said to be a "Real manna from heaven for BAE Systems and Pilatus which have both been seeking new customers for their latest trainer aircraft". In fact, BAE has currently completed the production of 28 Hawk 128/T2s for the Royal Air Force, while its Swiss partner has delivered PC-21s to its own air force and to the United Arab Emirates.
(Avionews)
http://www.avionews.com/index.php?corpo=see_news_home.php&news_id=1141139&pagina_chiamante=index.php
Dit topic wordt hier (http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/internationale_fighter_ontwikkelingen_deel_2-t23185.0.html) vervolgd.
Lex
Algeheel beheerder