If it has lower than delta or Trapezoidal wing area in order to facilitate retraction of the wing into the fuselage.
Sorry CH, can you explain this sentence to me, I can't make any sense of it. Given that trapezoidal and delta are shapes, how can you define 'lower
than' a shape
I probably should have put that better. The implication was that a delta or trapezoidal (cropped delta or 'modified swept' are also used) wing has
greater chorded area whereas a VG airfoil has to effectively be 'straight' so that you can sweep it back into the fuselage.
This adds to problems of wingloading not merely in lost total area but also in the weight of the single pivot point carry through for structural loads
and the fact that /by retraction/ more wing surface is lost even as more weight is added inboard of the roots. Complicating weight:structural trades
with wasted volume and internal structural gaps.
Also, isn't the fact that the F-35 has always been defined as second tier to the Raptor completely irrelevant to this argument? After all the F-35
would also be 'second tier' to the Typhoon in the RAF too given its intended role so the comparison is a nonsense.
No. Because, to the Brits, the Typhoon IS the Raptor equivalent. Both they and the Aussies could have gone 'top tier' and at least been told no
from the outset. Instead, they went bargain basement on the assumption that they would be getting something 'good enough for guvmint purposes' when
it was open knowledge from at least early 1994, when AvLeak started covering the JAST/JSF efforts, that the JSF would not be the equivalent to the
Whether this was true or just a way to protect the Raptor from predation as a 'more elite' systems doesn't matter.
It should also be said that the JSF can still go places that the Flubber cannot. At least once (in but not out?;-). So that the Flubber would be
left at the fence lobbing Meteors, S2s and Armigers (or whatever comes next for ALARM) in the hopes of keeping the enemies heads down, much as was
done with the F-117 and the EA-6/EF-111/F-4G efforts.
The difference being that threats will be MUCH more advanced than what the USAF faced in DS (if indeed you consider the F-117 to be a viable
penetrating all weather strike asset, which I do not). And so, without _my system_ of UCAVs to the fore (cheap is as cheap can saturate do), the
threat to the manned platform is always going to be there. And quite possibly too high to be risked as both technology base AND man.
Which is something I have also argued 'til I'm blue in the face with superslingbombed SDB as my preference for sending _bullets where men should not
go_. And aeroballistic/cruise weapons before that if need be (depending on how long Overhead lasts in a laser threat environment and how much
intelligent classification has been added to our IMINT systems, it should be possible to track down even rapid-displacement threats like S-300/400.
At least 'in _detection_ proximity to the raid penetration tracks).
More accurately, the indication has laways been that there would be a 'domestic and close partner' standard of F-35 (which were one and the same)
and an 'export' standard for everybody else. This was the basis on which the industrial partners entered the programme, it is the sudden removal of
this 'close partner' element and reclassification to mere 'export' standard that is now causing these partners to grind their teeth, the message
now being that 'yes, you have contributed £2bn to development costs but that doesn't buy you any better standard of aircraft than any other
customer outside the USA'
Is that 2 or 3.5 billion dollars?
No matter, the notion that you _can have the airframe just not the manufacturing processes_ is what counts. As when we offered F-117C. You know that
I would prefer to hand back the total investment package and saddle the taxpayers with yet another debt as to give away source codes and VLO
I'm sorry, I just have no pity /or faith/ whatsoever in those who think that they should be allowed 'special access' to /technology base/
capabilties. Because the planes are always going to be at risk and that's a part of the risks of war (not to mention I think we know better than to
not have a standing sanitization package ready for the next flat-impact crash landing).
But the only reasons you could want the full data package is if you think you are going to be a FACO line-equivalent for Europe (something which _did
not_ happen, even with Fokker/SABCA on the F-16, there was always a center cluster of subassemblies that had to be sourced to GDFW). Or if you want
to copy and resell with just enough variation to beat the copyright while /conceptually/ compromising the existing system.
The first will never happen because this is a Congressional pork program and we are not stupid enough to think you can have multiple foreign sources
of manufacture without ruining the scalar economics. That is effectively what ruined Flubber.
The latter _should not_ happen. Because this is the last manned fighter and by the time another (unmanned) cycle comes around, a new standard of
technology should be available/necessary. Which means that unless you intend to 'make hay' with commercial and particularly Continental
crosspollination NOW, you don't /need/ to have access to 'how we build' portion of things.
In any case, please keep in mind, that _to me_ the notion of spending 257 billion dollars to provide the UK with 50-100 jets worth of airpower that
_we don't need_ (with Raptor and UCAV) is simply inconceivable. But if you want VLO and you _cannot do it on your own or with EU partners_. Then
it's rude to ask for more than what you can provide from your own tech base in trade for cheaper-than-everybody-else discount.
Again, I think it's just The City saying "Whoa up there!" as the number crunchers realize there will never be a market for 4,000, 104 million
dollar, airframes. And this is a convenient excuse.
If I was worried about things like ECM/ECCM updates (tactical refresh appropriate to UK theaters of interest) and maybe a shot at depot maintenance,
_as a function of money'd offsets_. I would be looking at increasing my presence on whatever CTF/SPO level was required to guarantee that my jets
got first consideration rather than annual tape changes. Even as I would be asking to buy into whatever _U.S._ company was doing the local depot work
in the UK.
These are not of course guarantees that UK espionage efforts will not try to walk out the door with industrial level secrets. But it is at least a
sop to U.S. worries about who and how much the accountable loss would be for.
Its all right you guys getting all defensive and saying 'of course we will keep the best for ourselves, what do you expect?' well, for a start we
would expect you to keep to the terms and ideals of what was originally set out when the thing started and for exclusions not to suddenly be inserted
I seem to recall that the Tier 1 player got noteable input on the design and configuration (which is now basically over) and a significant discount.
I don't recall anyone saying we had to give you the keys to the kingdom.
Or would you say we should expect nothing else from such a sneaky conniving and untrustworthy nation such as America? (In response to the rant at the
end of Ch's diatribe)
There was a time when 'gentleman did not ask gentleman for secrets that could not be given'. They did not read each other's mail. They did not
steal each other's industrial secrets. They did not make a habit of buying out each other's industry, raping it of technology base and selling off
the regurgitated (Ch.11) leftovers.
The problem is that that was then (if ever) and while "Only a gentleman can insult me and a gentleman never would..." there is only so much hubris
inherent to a diminishing NATO role and 3,500 miles of Ocean before we look at you as the City State you are. And wonder /why/ if you cannot do it on
your own. And indeed, you already /have/ a fighter program you clearly don't consider adequate to the task, you think you can bully a NATION STATE,
of Continental Mass. Into giving you more than a good deal on what you _choose to buy_ from U.S.
With DEWS on the horizon and falling oil production after 2020, economical UCAVs are the future sir. The entire EU knows it. And if we misstep by
investing our entire exchequer into JSF, we will not be able to participate, no matter how particular our knowledge of netcentric combat and VLO
Answer me straight: WHY should we give EADS/Thales and Team Neuron the baseline technology capability by sending you a datapackage to be 'cared for
and secured' IN YOUR COUNTRY. If it only serves to let them avoid paying for the 20+ years of R&D that our stranglehold on the TTNT/VLO design
I'm sorry, but you should have known that /any/ contact between BAe and The Continent would instantly be a roadblock to further 'special
relationship' technology exchange in relevant fields of cointerest with EADS in particular.
As our NATO presence fades, EU power will grow. As their power grows they will become ever more closed shop in terms of defense purchases. If it's
not just the height of hypocrisy that the UK would seek to claim jilted-lover status so that WE should better enable the inevitable to happen more
quickly with technology base that WE PAID FOR.
Not you and your 60 million. But U.S. and our 295.
P.S. War is a total waste. Because it's principle purpose in amalgamating cultural, strategic and natural resources under one legal system of
economic distribution has been forgotten. I wouldn't mind the risk of technology loss so much if I only thought we were /going somewhere/ with the
concept of conflict as a technologic sport. But the only thing the last 15 years have taught me is that in the absence of a forward thinking home
strategy and deliberate effort to move beyond a petroeconomy, Presidents have treated overwhelming airpower as a cheap FoPo way of transferring
worrying public issues away from their own incompetence and towards nationalistic paranoia (patriotism as a religion _disgusts_ me).
Now imagine what happens if leaders around the world start to think along the same lines because 'whatever LO is' it has been proliferated and
evolutionarily diversified to the extent that desultory wars become a common event. An event where small hurts lead to TRILLIONS in war chest
expenditures for vengeance. As Iraq is rapidly becoming.
I _will not_ support a Vae Victis Vickers approach to arms export technology laissez faire that leaves the poor of the world unprotected by LOCLOEXCOM
and ITAR export controls on the most lethal of _non attributable_ killing technology we have yet devised.
Nukes are worthless because they destroy what should be owned by /someone/ while engendering a massive-retaliatory response.
Stealth removes attribution. And encourages high value _tactical_ strikes by which the poor have nothing to lose. And the rich are hostaged to their
How can we be so STUPID as to want to give that leverage away to anyone?