Page 124 of 130 FirstFirst ... 115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130 LastLast
Results 1,846 to 1,860 of 1942

Thread: What is up with the F-35? Part II

  1. #1846
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    Apparently Rogoway thinks Japan has a spare $10 billion to restart the F-22 production line, and modernize it in the bargain.



    Granted, it's marginally more sane than that F22/F35 mashup that Lockheed Martin is trying to pitch to Tokyo.
    more like 40 billion:

    But now a $40 billion tender is being put forward by Japan to indigenously develop or import a new super fighter design. Although Mitsubishi’s X-2 technology demonstrator has just taken flight, it is just that: a technology demonstrator. Despite inaccurate press reports that the X-2 is a prototype, there's is no guarantee it will make it into production in the coming decade. Think of it more as a Bird Of Prey than a YF-22.


    If Japan can in fact pony up $40 billion it would seem pretty silly to not partner with them to get something done.

  2. #1847
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,437
    Perhaps somewhat interestingly the two F-35A brought in for the ILA Berlin Air Show are grounded now and put up as a static display. Originally they were supposed to do some flight shows.

    There's a rumour going around at ILA (and in the press) that this is because Hensoldt is also presenting its Twinvis passive radar system there which with a pretty hefty dose of signal processing basically picks up on "disturbances" of the default environmental EM spectrum mostly in VHF and other frequencies to locate aircraft (a bit inprecisely, the company is talking about 50m accuracy for jet aircraft within a 100 km range provided 2-3 VHF beacons light it up).

  3. #1848
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Perhaps somewhat interestingly the two F-35A brought in for the ILA Berlin Air Show are grounded now and put up as a static display. Originally they were supposed to do some flight shows.

    There's a rumour going around at ILA (and in the press) that this is because Hensoldt is also presenting its Twinvis passive radar system there which with a pretty hefty dose of signal processing basically picks up on "disturbances" of the default environmental EM spectrum mostly in VHF and other frequencies to locate aircraft (a bit inprecisely, the company is talking about 50m accuracy for jet aircraft within a 100 km range provided 2-3 VHF beacons light it up).
    Why would that matter if the F-35 is flying with Luneburg lenses at all times?

    The news articles in the defense press only said the Air Force planned to put up the F-35s as static displays:

    https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...rlin-air-show/

    Note that for the Paris Air Show, the US received an official invitation to mount a flying display, and the flight was performed by a Lockheed Martin test pilot. The USAF F-35 Heritage Flight team can put on some less technical displays, but they still have to be invited to do so.
    Last edited by citanon; 28 Apr 18, at 09:21.

  4. #1849
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Note that for the Paris Air Show, the US received an official invitation to mount a flying display, and the flight was performed by a Lockheed Martin test pilot.
    And that's what was originally planned for Berlin. An extra Lockheed Martin aircraft in flight.
    https://www.bdli.de/en/publications/...la-berlin-2018 - last paragraph.
    BDLI is the organization hosting ILA.

  5. #1850
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Oct 06
    Posts
    787
    No F-35's for Turkey!

    Senate attempting to ban sales to them.

  6. #1851
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by bfng3569 View Post
    No F-35's for Turkey!

    Senate attempting to ban sales to them.
    That bill is going nowhere, given the Pentagon's desire to exempt allied nations from the ban, and honestly, no one actually cares about that Pastor.

  7. #1852
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    And that's what was originally planned for Berlin. An extra Lockheed Martin aircraft in flight.
    https://www.bdli.de/en/publications/...la-berlin-2018 - last paragraph.
    BDLI is the organization hosting ILA.
    But isn't the c-130j also not flying? AF says only the ch-53 demo is planned.

    http://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Press-R...air-show-2018/

    It could be that there's some screw up or unclear wording from bdli, or political pressure to cancel the displays.

    It doesn't seem to make sense to cancel a display on account of a passive radar system when the airplane is already configured to reflect radio waves like a giant barn door.

    So apparently the ch-53k seems to actually have a good chance of winning orders from Germany, whereas the F-35 just got the head of the air force retired on time. The CH-53K is actually having its world wide debut at Berlin:

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-lo...-idUKKBN1DF2TH

    You know probably since last year that the LM helicopter sales team has been saying: "don't piss them off, don't piss them off".
    Last edited by citanon; 28 Apr 18, at 20:06.

  8. #1853
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    So apparently the ch-53k seems to actually have a good chance of winning orders from Germany, whereas the F-35 just got the head of the air force retired on time.
    The STH competition was basically always just about CH-53K vs CH-47F - the CH-47F has also been flying there this year. LM/Sikorsky partnered up with Rheinmetall in February and got MTU to issue some press statements in their favour in order to offset the higher procurement price with a sort of geo-return deal though. Now just gotta overcome the guys in the air force that want both an actual workhorse and the same helo that their semi-integrated partner air force is already flying...

    And yes, the C-130J isn't flying either. In addition to the one sent by the USAF there were supposed to be two sent by LM - which were to do the flight displays.

    One could be sarcastic in that regard: The CH-53K flying hoping to win a contract, the C-130J not flying because with a signed contract there's no further need for advertising, and the F-35A not flying because Eurofighter just announced they'll allow B61 (and JSM) integration for a pitch as a Tornado successor the day before ILA started - which, uh, lowers the F-35A's chances quite a bit.

  9. #1854
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    I mean, the German government was practically putting a gun to Airbus' head with one hand and yelling at the company to take the money shoved into its face with the other.

    I don't think Lockheed was surprised.

    Now, if they can put the B61 warhead onto a missile like the JDM it might actually make Typhoon into a credible delivery system.

    No wonder we are doing a new nuclear cruise missile. I wonder if LRSO could be integrated on the Typhoon.
    Last edited by citanon; 28 Apr 18, at 22:20.

  10. #1855
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Now, if they can put the B61 warhead onto a missile like the JDM it might actually make Typhoon into a credible delivery system.
    Eh, in my opinion we should just hop onto the ASN4G train, give the Prometheus variant a push and buy our carrier system in accordance with that.

  11. #1856
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,026
    I just was reading about the JSOW-ER which has a rocket motor that greatly increases the weapons' effective range. What I don't understand is the JSOW-ER is now effectively in the same category as the JASSM. I know the USN originally pushed the JSOW over the JASSM because the JASSM took a lot longer to get into service, but the USN now uses the LRASM derivative of the JASSM as well. I'm just a little confused as to why the JSOW-ER was developed as it seems to duplicate what the JASSM already does, perhaps it is significantly cheaper?

  12. #1857
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Jsow-er is about half the size and weight and supposedly about half the cost of jassm.

  13. #1858
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,006
    I would think, aside from cheaper JSOW is already certified for navy ships. And Navy/marine Corps planes are certified to carry and drop it. JASSM hasn't been certified, so you are looking at a couple of years of testing/redesign before it can be deployed.

    LRASM is still in testing/certification with the Navy. They were required by Congress to get on the program to fill an "Urgent Need stopgap"requirement. Its replacement is already in the works
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  14. #1859
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Eh, in my opinion we should just hop onto the ASN4G train, give the Prometheus variant a push and buy our carrier system in accordance with that.
    That would work too but the legal and production issues would seem more complicated and possibly even more political.

  15. #1860
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Eh, in my opinion we should just hop onto the ASN4G train, give the Prometheus variant a push and buy our carrier system in accordance with that.
    The problem is that changing horses would require politicians to publicly talk about the fact that Germany not only possesses nuclear weapons already, but that they are buying brand new ones. From what I understand of the German public, that's likely to have seriously negative political repercussions for the German leadership. Which is why the Tornado replacement program is so late to begin with.

    I see a few options for Germany but none of them are great.

    • Certifying Typhoons for B-61 deployment is possible but I don't really see it happening anytime soon. F-35 is going to get nuclear certification priority and there's going to be a lot of political red tape regarding Eurofighter software access to hash out. This could drag out for a long time.
    • Following the lead of the UK, Netherlands, and Italy in buying F-35s. This would impose a domestic cost on the leadership for spurning domestic industry.
    • Scrapping the nuclear sharing deal altogether would burn bridges with Washington and other large NATO members.
    • Switching to a French deterrent results in changing the status quo and requires bringing a public discussion of nuclear policy to the German public which is political suicide. France's culture of strategic independence is also totally at odds with giving a foreign country any say in how the force de frappe is utilized.


    Perhaps the best option is advancing cooperative burden sharing with the Netherlands following the precedent of shared batallions, Leopard 2s, HNLMS Karel Doorman etc.

    Germany could underwrite a couple squadrons of Dutch F-35s to be operated jointly from Büchel Air Base while additional Typhoons fill in the rest of the conventional strike gaps. The bombs stay under the current American manned arrangement and now German politicians can wink and claim they don't own any nuclear capable aircraft.

    This seems like the arrangement that goes over the smoothest. The Dutch get their F-35 numbers shored up, Eurofighter consortium gets additional orders on the books, nuclear sharing arrangements aren't modified and need not be brought up in public, and Germany won't "own" any American nuclear delivery systems... even if German pilots happen to fly them regularly.
    Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 30 Apr 18, at 17:01.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sig P250, Part 2
    By GraniteForge in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 26 Nov 08,, 01:04
  2. What part do you disagree with?
    By Roosveltrepub in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22 Apr 08,, 16:52
  3. Who wants to be a part?
    By joey2 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Nov 06,, 01:31
  4. I did my part
    By bren in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Nov 06,, 11:49

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •