It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain, Italy seek to slash Eurofighter orders

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Do you, for instance, think that the USAF finds the situation 'not a problem' that their F-15s are suffering structural failure before they reach their claimed airframe life? Do you think that the USAF will apply some sort of 'fudge factor' (or rather exaggeration / optimism factor) the next time an airframe has its life extended ? The Winged Wombat


You sorta questioned your own question WW. The F-15 are well past their inital airframe lifetime but where over designed to deal with stresses etc much like the DC-3 and as shuch have been around much longer then intially thought. If the airframes old A-D airframes which are only 2 years away from starting to be retired and you take the fact not fudge that they did their best "guess" on their lifetime its not unrealistic that the longerons are in trouble now and that they are over the intial lifetime by 3500 hours isn't that bad at all.

The gearbox and cost over runs of the F-35 are making me think critically about it which is a good thing even Westy should agree on that. My concern is that with the seeming lack of accountablity on lockheeds teams part and the worries (founded or unfounded) on timeline and IOC for the models its not unreasonable for the UK, CAN, AUS, and the other european countries to send a message to lockheed to start being on the level with them on the program and not sweeping anything under the carpet.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Cost will be the final (sign on the dotted line) factor with this aircraft - nothing about its bomb truck capability (or eventual A2A capability)

when the original programme was laid out the cost was based upon a total run of 3200 airframes , with 1/3 being foreign orders.

here in 2007 - the US isn`t buying as many so the estimated run is now down to 2300 and could be as low as 1700 - at 2300 total build - foreign orders now account for 50% of the aircraft made.

and cost - in 2001 the aircraft was supposed to be $70 fly away each - here in 2007 that figure is now $115 , and with redesigns of electrical system (the cause of teh 6 month delay) and teh engine redesign - the costs will go up and up - and the delays now will figure into at least a 1 year delay - maybe more at the other end of the deal - which is why LM are asking to build 2 fewer production spec pre delivery aircraf and fly fewer qualification flights (800 less)


i can honestly see the final price being well over $150 million each probably closer to $175 million - at that point the Tier 3 people will start asking - is it worth it since there original buy for 24 is now only going to be affordable for 10

same with the UK - since you can get 3 typhoons for the price of 2 F35`s.

[edit on 12/12/07 by Harlequin]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Canada_EH
 


Umm… not to be rude or anything but did you read my post? And by read I mean actually pay attention to what I had to say?

Let me repost what I said… The emphasis is mine.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hmm… interesting, so the power generator error only concerns the F-35C. Its test aircraft wont be ready to fly until 2009 anyway and its IOC is not scheduled until 2014, translation, no delay. Notice, the 2009 date only concerns the gear box issue, not the underpowered generator.


As you can see, that is why I specifically mentioned the F-35C and the power generator issue.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Canada_EH,

I had a couple of reads of that quote some way back, and it's a bit ambiguous. You can read it that the new gearbox has to go into both the F-35B and the C, or you can read it that it has to go onto the F-135 to suit the C model only. So I'm not sure exactly what was meant.

I wasn't suggesting that the F-15s had not reached their original life. The point is that the work done/assessment on the airframes resulted in the manufacturer telling the USAF that they were now good for (was it) 8000hrs. OK, so the USAF can now plan it's re-equipment on that basis. The fact that the airframes then fail structurally before that time, means that the final airframe life failed to meet the figures on which the USAF planned (or re-planned) its procurement/replacement policy and that the re-assessment was just plain wrong. Like, bad advise, in this case, is worse than no advise at all. From the perspective of the Singaporians, or the South Koreans, they were sold an aircraft, which (because of the information used by the USAF, and no doubt promoted by the manufacturer - in fact there is a 14 page F-15 promotional supplement in the current edition of Air International), they could reasonably expect to last for the higher figure, so their future planning would be based on that erroneous figure.

Once again, as with the USAF, the over optimistic expectation that the airframes would last until the higher figure, throws their future replacement policy into disarray. A further flow on is that aircraft manufacturers also base future products on the timescale in which customers are going to have to replace their current equipment.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Hmm… interesting, so the power generator error only concerns the F-35C. Its test aircraft wont be ready to fly until 2009 anyway and its IOC is not scheduled until 2014, translation, no delay. Notice, the 2009 date only concerns the gear box issue, not the underpowered generator.


With this quote I think you'll see where "concern" can be just as misleading as the word effect. In fact what you highlighted above is exactly what would thorw off someone reading the post. If you clarified with adding that the F-35B test flight dates will have to be changed it would of been a little more easy to understand then the wording for the C version and its effects though I do understand now what you where getting at.

The actual publication cites that the B and C models will need to have changes to the gear box and this was my point though I understand what you where trying to say about the C version and its flight test schedual. My question is with the reduction and compression of the 35 test program are those dates old or new? Sorry Westy I'm not trying to flame or discredit you but like everyone else trying to make clear the complexity of this project and the effect or "concerns" that are raised by this new issue.


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 





And I might as well add that the F-35B's the UK will be purchasing will come equipped with the F-136, a different engine.


Not exactly. It is the favoured engine, but nothing has been decided, and if the F136 gets re-cancelled then that will be the end of it.



As for when the RAF reach IOC with the type or when it estimated it will reach IOC, not my concern.


In the wider F-35 debate no, it is not. But is is extremely relevant to the subject of this thread.

In the spirit of which I will just observe that, leaving aside whether the F-35 will do what it is supposed to (and whatever problems might or might not arise I am sure it will eventually) I just hope that our Govt buys *something* as the way we are going I can see both Typhoon tranche 3 and the UK F-35 biting the dust.

* Canada EH, If I have understood Westy correctly I think he was saying that the gearbox change is only really *needed* for the F-35C, but will become a standard item on all F135 engines from thence forward anyway, whether they are fitted to the A or C models so, although the change will happen, it will not actually affect the A models development and testing phase.

If I am wrong then I am sorry Westy, only trying to help.




[edit on 12-12-2007 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

In the spirit of which I will just observe that, leaving aside whether the F-35 will do what it is supposed to (and whatever problems might or might not arise I am sure it will eventually) I just hope that our Govt buys *something* as the way we are going I can see both Typhoon tranche 3 and the UK F-35 biting the dust.


Not going to happen, I'm hearing that the reasons for delaying acceptance of the Tranche 3EF-Ts are the current possible exports (allowing a lower purchase cost) and that the RAF want the 3D thrust vectoring engines sorted out.

As for the F-35, the RN are right now pretty much tied in to the F-35B (unless there's an about face on the CVF design) and the RAF as well as the Aussies have expressed interest in the A, and more interestingly in a land based version of the C varient with non foldaway wings, and since sign up for any of the F-35 variants wont happen until after the next election I don't think anybody is worrying about cutting it right now.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
The new CVF`s are designed for catobar operations - and in fact will have cat gear installed



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

i can honestly see the final price being well over $150 million each probably closer to $175 million - at that point the Tier 3 people will start asking - is it worth it since there original buy for 24 is now only going to be affordable for 10

[edit on 12/12/07 by Harlequin]


150 Million per plane is just too much for my nation (Netherlands) to bear!!!

I mean, 150 Million is an awfull high amount off money and my DoD only gets 8.1 billion Euro`s. So it will propably canceld because off this Way too high price.

Iff that happens, we need to buy something else...... Then we are forced to buy Russian wich is a massive taboo in the NATO


The only solution is to lower the price by a factor off 2 or 3. Then we can afford these planes. Iff LM and/or US goverment doesnt, we are forced to buy Russian...



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
www.israel-canada.org...


Here's a good read everyone...

Hope u enjoy



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
The new CVF`s are designed for catobar operations - and in fact will have cat gear installed


Designed for quick conversion to Cats yes, fitting them is still up in the air, if it were my choice I'd have them, STOVL craft can opperate from CATOBAR craft, better to have operational compatability IMO



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I say build 2000 new F-15's with APG-79's and 500 F-35's, for the Navy, and scrap all existing F-15/16/18's



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisterVoid

Originally posted by Harlequin
The new CVF`s are designed for catobar operations - and in fact will have cat gear installed


Designed for quick conversion to Cats yes, fitting them is still up in the air, if it were my choice I'd have them, STOVL craft can opperate from CATOBAR craft, better to have operational compatability IMO


HMS Queen Elizabeth will be converted later, HMS Prince of Wales will be equipped from the start according to a recent report published in Flight.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
That is actually very good to hear, finally a little forethought from the MOD



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Which country invented the E.F.?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Eurofighter Typhoon Multi-Role Combat Fighter, Europe
The four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon is a foreplane delta-wing, beyond-visual-range, close air fighter aircraft with surface attack capability. Eurofighter has 'supercruise' capability: it can fly at sustained speeds of over Mach 1 without the use of afterburner.

Development of the aircraft has been carried out by Eurofighter GmbH, based in Munich and wholly owned by BAE Systems of the UK, Alenia Aeronautica of Italy and the EADS Deutschland (formerly DaimlerChrysler) and EADS Spain (formerly CASA).

LINK

hope that helps



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
What they fail to tell you is it was based of a british design which was then de-optimised to meet international operational demands



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisterVoid
What they fail to tell you is it was based of a british design which was then de-optimised to meet international operational demands


Yes, that design was the BAe (small e in those days) P.120, and I am still trying to trace the image of that design that was published in Flight magazine in 1989 if anyone has it.

It looks very much like the Typhoon of Today except for the intake being rounded, in similar fashion to the F-16 except with the divider in the middle, and tip mounted missiles. The image was published with the message that if the European partners didn't come to agreement soon BAe were fully prepared and able to go ahead with the P.120 on their own as it already had the full backing of the RAF and MoD. 'Eurofighter' began to move forwards almost immediately.

When the first images of 'Eurofighter' were published they were clearly doctored from the P.120 image as being painted in the same climbing attitude but tyhe straight leading edge wing was replaced by a kinked leading edge and the rounded intake was replaced with a square box intake.

By the time the aircraft emerged in 1994 BAe had got their own wing back on it and a compromise 'curved box' intake whixh is what we see today.

In the fine detail the P.120 looks more like the Typhoon than the early Eurofighter pictures does so clearly BAe kept chipping away.

Now, has anyone got that damned picture?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
That's not it. That's the earlier P.110 which is quite different with twin fins and lateral intakes and was part of an earlier study that led into the Eurofighter discussions along with MBB's TKF 90 right at the start.

I'm looking for the P.120 which was BAE's last attempt to go it alone and was proposed at a time when Eurofighter looked like it was running out steam and was the design that actually later became the Typhoon.

The P.120 post dates the EAP and incorporated much of what was learned from flying that demonstrator and yet none of the websites make any mention of it.

This design seems to have been airbrushed out of the Typhoons history for some reason but I distinctly and clearly remember seeing it at the time and actually wishing the whole four nation thing would just go away so we could get on with it.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by waynos]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join