Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Scorpion Fighter Jet Finally Within IAC Budget Perhaps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    http://rt.com/usa/240393-f-35-false-alarm/

    Seems fires etc just won't go away. Has there ever been another aircraft under development that has suffered so many problems?

    Is the design over complicated and are they expecting too much from it?

    Are they too far into it now to start again?

    The biggest loser in the equation would appear to be the UK as they have literally put all their eggs in one basket by designing two carriers around an aircraft that is still non operational.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
      http://rt.com/usa/240393-f-35-false-alarm/

      Seems fires etc just won't go away. Has there ever been another aircraft under development that has suffered so many problems?

      Is the design over complicated and are they expecting too much from it?

      Are they too far into it now to start again?

      The biggest loser in the equation would appear to be the UK as they have literally put all their eggs in one basket by designing two carriers around an aircraft that is still non operational.
      I think there's no question that it's too complicated and has too high expectations to meet. If they had gone with a design that was a A and C type (ie Air Force and Navy) I think it would have been vastly easier to get operational, think it's the compromises to make the B work that's caused many of the headaches.

      Given the development rate for the US at this stage when it comes to military projects, they are far too along to quit. You'd be talking about at least another 2 decades as a new development ( for example unless they've been running a black project for the new Bomber and pumping huge money into it, their planned IOC for it is just fantasy nonsense).

      In terms of the UK, that whole decision still makes no sense to me (well outside of BAE getting work out of it), would have thought the C variant would have made much more sense for a joint service element, while that would have meant the Carriers would also have been able to have a proper AWACs system rather than the Crowsnest project. They knew the USN was making a E Cat so they could have built the CVF's to feature it. But given the current planned air group how much sense do they make anyway?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
        ...In terms of the UK, that whole decision still makes no sense to me (well outside of BAE getting work out of it), would have thought the C variant would have made much more sense for a joint service element, while that would have meant the Carriers would also have been able to have a proper AWACs system rather than the Crowsnest project. They knew the USN was making a E Cat so they could have built the CVF's to feature it. But given the current planned air group how much sense do they make anyway?
        the issue over B vs C was decided by the number of carriers.

        simply put the training/currency requirement for cat and trap operations was far higher than for V/STOL, with two carriers in a training/re-fit/operations cycle you'd have periods where there was no servicable carrier with a trained/current airgroup available for operations. that sealed it, the RN and UK govt decided that - learning from the French experience with CdeG - pretty good capability with 100% availability was better than outstanding capability with 70-80% availability.

        moreover, choosing 'B' with its much lower training/currency requirement makes it far easier to surge capability than would be the case with 'C'. a QE with 12 F-35B can be surged to a QE with 35+ F-35B at the drop of a hat, and you'd be able to maintain that force indefinately. not something you could do with a 'C'. in performance terms the only real issue is the size of the internal weapons bay - B is limited to 1000lb sized bombs with C can take 2000lb class bombs. C carried more fuel, but the need for 'go-around' reserve fuel and divert fuel negates the value of the actual additional fuel carried. in the event of a problem on the carrier that prevented any landing, a B could (with a very crispy flight deck) do an emergency divert to a Type 45 or T23/25. a C would have to ditch.

        future proofing is an issue, no UCAV in current development could use the QE's.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
          Ah Russia Today, when it comes to US military programs there is simply no source more reliable and unbiased. A bastion of journalistic integrity and in no way an international propaganda outlet for the Putin regime.

          Just saying....

          The F35 is still a long way off the mark.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            ...Our needs are PDF support and chasing intruders.
            it does.

            however, the 572mph max speed and 22k fpm climb rate suggest that this is not the aircraft to provide the QRA element of that need.

            it will do 572mph, presumably in a clean configuration - which is actually shower than a BEAR (let alone an errant A330) - whats its max speed with two external tanks, 2 AMRAAM's and 2 ASRAAM's?

            Ireland air policing needs are for something very fast, with very quick time to height, for shepherding aircraft that aren't doing as they are told by ATC, and something that can 'escort' a BEAR 100 miles north west of Donegal and stay with it the whole time until its handed over to the French, Portugese or UK aircraft 100 miles south west of Bantry. this is not that aircraft.

            in terms of time to height - for chasing errant aircraft who aren't doing as they're told - you'll note that the M346 has a rate of climb around one third of that of a Typhoon....

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
              The biggest loser in the equation would appear to be the UK as they have literally put all their eggs in one basket by designing two carriers around an aircraft that is still non operational.
              Tend to agree with the "eggs in one basket" analogy. Wounder how quickly we could get Harrier II (GR-9) back in production if F-35 went completely to rat siht .

              As ropebag sort of said "pretty good capability with 100% availability is better than outstanding capability with 70-80% availability".

              Must admit I for one would have been very happy to see Harrier back in the sky's from the QE class. Very very different aircraft I know but with the money spent on F-35 diverted into creating Harrier III (a project which was looked at but pressure from the spams put it to bed) ,,,,,,,,, pretty good capability.

              Sadly we prematurely "scrapped" and then sold to America 70 odd Harriers for a knockdown $116 million for spares so they could keep theirs flying.
              $116 million!!!! Isn't that the price of a single F-35??

              Anyway I'm just very bias, love this brute and would enjoy seeing her take to the sky's again, despite her limitations in certain areas:

              We travel not for trafficking alone,
              By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
              For lust of knowing what should not be known,
              We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

              Comment


              • #37
                The AC currently has a "Flight" of Marpat Aircraft, Half a Squadron of Trainers and about a Squadron of Heli's and a few odds and ends, and guys here are discussing the merits of F-35 versus Gripen.. But then I suppose they don't know about Hanger 13!

                Comment


                • #38
                  M 346 type aircraft

                  Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                  it does.

                  however, the 572mph max speed and 22k fpm climb rate suggest that this is not the aircraft to provide the QRA element of that need.

                  it will do 572mph, presumably in a clean configuration - which is actually shower than a BEAR (let alone an errant A330) - whats its max speed with two external tanks, 2 AMRAAM's and 2 ASRAAM's?

                  Ireland air policing needs are for something very fast, with very quick time to height, for shepherding aircraft that aren't doing as they are told by ATC, and something that can 'escort' a BEAR 100 miles north west of Donegal and stay with it the whole time until its handed over to the French, Portugese or UK aircraft 100 miles south west of Bantry. this is not that aircraft.

                  in terms of time to height - for chasing errant aircraft who aren't doing as they're told - you'll note that the M346 has a rate of climb around one third of that of a Typhoon....
                  The task is to transition the AC to an advanced jet trainer with combat capability . Stepping up to a full capability fighter is a step too far, with a requirement even then for a training aircraft. Requirement for tandem seating to check out pilots for qualification will always be there. We would also need an inflight refuelling capability for safety of very fast jets. Immediate transition to Gripen or any such aircraft without transition could be accident prone. The Germans lost some pilots in trying to master fast jets. Dart, M346 or any aircraft from the top of the trainer market, adapted for our use would be a step foward. The rest would only be achievable within an alliance.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                    The task is to transition the AC to an advanced jet trainer with combat capability . Stepping up to a full capability fighter is a step too far, with a requirement even then for a training aircraft. Requirement for tandem seating to check out pilots for qualification will always be there. We would also need an inflight refuelling capability for safety of very fast jets. Immediate transition to Gripen or any such aircraft without transition could be accident prone. The Germans lost some pilots in trying to master fast jets. Dart, M346 or any aircraft from the top of the trainer market, adapted for our use would be a step foward. The rest would only be achievable within an alliance.
                    How exactly are we to use the inflight refueling? What's wrong with the Hawk, considering Dart is still a paper plane, M346 is in low rate production and the Scorpion is barely more than a paper plane with no customers. Why is tandem seating a requirement when the Hawk which has been widely used for training isn't?
                    Hell for setting up training systems I'd just make the call to leverage off the RAF and invest in actual aircraft that could do the job here in Ireland rather than invest in trainers that have marginal usage outside of training (mainly as we all know the politicians would be most likely to point to the weapons on the trainers and say "there, air patrol sorted!"

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It has been said so many times, getting a jet trainer such as the hawk and expecting it to do interceptor work is a waste of money. We don't need jet trainers. We have them already.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Cost V's capability is always going to be a huge influencing factor where the AC is concerned and lets be honest the AC will NEVER be in a position to operate 10's of millions of pounds / euros / dollars worth of jet / fighter / interceptors in sufficient numbers to even maintain a QRF type capability. Work on the rule of 1/3's and you would need a minimum of 6 to maintain a 2 x aircraft flight on permanent QRF. Just QRF!!!

                        At least Hawk / Scorpion are "affordable" but the AC don't have any. If they don't have any affordable aircraft how in gods name do we expect them to operate "un-affordable" aircraft. JAS 39 Gripen costs in the region of USD 70 million per unit. Scorpion in the region of USD 20 million per unit. Typhoon in the region of USD 90 million per unit. Hawk in the region of USD 30 million per unit.

                        Hawk, mid priced, intermediate capability, lets have a look for the sake of looking.

                        Hawk 128 (T2) is a very capable aircraft, Maximum speed: Mach 0.84 (1,028 km/h, 638 mph). Range: 2,520 km (1,360 nmi, 1,565 mi). Service ceiling: 13,565 m (44,500 ft). Rate of climb: 47 m/s (9,300 ft/min). 1× 30 mm ADEN cannon, in centreline pod. Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on five hardpoints, including: 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM on wing pylons and wingtip rails. Plus the usual Rockets, JADAM, Brimstone, Sea Eagle etc. etc. so for all those Bear escorts / intercepts it could do the job. Lets face it the AC will never have the capability to go up against / face off / intercept MiG 29's or whatever.

                        Stena Line, Dublin to Holyhead (and RAF Valley) in 99 minutes. That's how close the nearest training center for Hawk is, spitting distance. With the Hawk capability and all the training requirements 99 minutes away by boat you would think its a no brainer.

                        But even that ain't going to happen. The sooner its excepted the better and the sooner a nice little letter can be composed and sent to RAF High Wycombe requesting assistance in protecting our undefended airspace from all the nasty people out there. Allow the RAF unrestricted access to airspace and airfields civilian and otherwise that fall within Irish territorial boundaries, sorted.

                        Jet fighters in the AC, if some of the suggestions put forward were not so serious they would actually be funny. As for having jet trainers in the AC, their basic training (turbo prop) aircraft used to ascertain the suitability of pilots to move on to advanced training (Jet) aircraft like Hawk, Alpha Jet, T-38, should those pilots be deemed to have the aptitude to be successful Fast Jet pilots. No-one is going from PC-9 to Typhoon (or similar) in a single bound.
                        We travel not for trafficking alone,
                        By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                        For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                        We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          No-one is going from PC-9 to Typhoon (or similar) in a single bound.
                          Switzerland.

                          PC9 to F5/F18

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            My apologies, I thought we were discussing the Irish AC here. An organisation that has not flown a "Jet fighter" in god knows how many years let alone have the capability to train pilots to fly them. You really think they could jump out of PC-9 and into Typhoon / Gripen or similar after decades without even going through pre-flight checks on the most basic of jet (fighter) aircraft?
                            We travel not for trafficking alone,
                            By hotter winds our fiery hearts are fanned,
                            For lust of knowing what should not be known,
                            We make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              This discussion has been done to death. There is no point in buying an expensive LIFT for the IAC when a. The PC9 doesn't leave pilots that far short of the required capability.(go to Valley for a short LIFT course if deemed preferential) and b. The wasting of money on such domestic air show/O'Connell street fly past Joe Public fooling pretend fighters, with no and I repeat NO actual capability in minimally contested conditions, would unnecessarily kill the possibility of ever having a real capability and not in fact be a stepping stone towards it.

                              Buying new fighter jets will never be a possibility of the IAC. Buying second hand or even better entering a lease arrangement is a realistic financial possibility. We are the only country of our size to lack a QRA ability. The reason for that is policy related rather than financial.
                              Last edited by Jetjock; 22 June 2015, 09:52.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                None of our runways meets NATO standards, so buying a true fighter is a moot point......I'd imagine a loaded Hawk is considerably slower than it's advertised max speed and is very g-limited when loaded, like pretty much everything else that flies.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X