Senior Moderator
Posts: 3249
(8/3/05 12:42 am) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
If there's a second production line, it will be in Britain. I think that's what BAe is angling for, partly.
There's also the fact that Britain has been involved as the only 'Tier One' development partner from the start. The money invested so far is of course small beer compared to buying the planes - and even less compared to having it maintained and upgraded by Lockheed for 30 years.
Of course, if Britain did pull out, it would be a disaster for the JSF project. Unit costs would rocket, especially given the existing cost over-runs, delays, and possible Bottom-Up Review cuts. The Australians and Dutch might pull out too. But I doubt all that's going to happen. As you say, a compromise will be reached. This is one to watch. However, the technology of this plane means that previous maintenance and upgrade paradigms don't necessarily apply.The thing even has tamper-resistant technology built in at extra cost. It's not just about avionics.
There's an interesting analysis of the economics and politics of the joint program, and how it differs from F15-F16 series sales strategies here.
JSF isn't VTOL but STOVL, I thought. In any case, you're wrong concerning the Navy's situation. The new carriers are adaptable.
Quote:Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it will be possible to adapt either of the two new aircraft carriers so as to make them interoperable with the Rafale aircraft. [97328]
Mr. Ingram: As we announced on 30 September 2002, the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers will be configured to operate the STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter rather than a conventionally launched aircraft such as Rafale. The vessels will, however, be constructed to an adaptable design, which will allow us, if we so decide in the future, to modify the vessels from their original STOVL configuration to facilitate conventional flight operations.
The three lil' old STOVL aircraft carriers are due to start being mothballed in 2006 anyway, to be replaced by two much larger craft, built to a design by ... Thales. So if the worse comes to the worse we could always buy a whole bunch of ... Rafale. Just threatening the US with that should get us the production line and some technology concessions ...
The Americans are really getting their knickers in a knot over this. There are factions in the Pentagon, Air Force, State Department all screaming at each other about the project, which is bound to produce various botched decisions.
Meanwhile Lockheed is refusing to carry the can: nothing to do with us, we just do what we're told. So it's a matter of policy, and will go all the way to the President who will pass it on up - to the Vice-President.
Quote:Of course, if Britain did pull out, it would be a disaster for the JSF project. Unit costs would rocket, especially given the existing cost over-runs, delays, and possible Bottom-Up Review cuts
Why would it be a disaster?? The US has ordered 2,500...while England has ordered 60. You think the loss of 60 export planes will affect the project that much??
Cost overruns, delays and such...hey...you show me a project that didn't experience those things. You complain too much BR
Quote:JSF isn't VTOL but STOVL, I thought. In any case, you're wrong concerning the Navy's situation. The new carriers are adaptable.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it will be possible to adapt either of the two new aircraft carriers so as to make them interoperable with the Rafale aircraft. [97328]
Mr. Ingram: As we announced on 30 September 2002, the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers will be configured to operate the STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter rather than a conventionally launched aircraft such as Rafale. The vessels will, however, be constructed to an adaptable design, which will allow us, if we so decide in the future, to modify the vessels from their original STOVL configuration to facilitate conventional flight operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three lil' old STOVL aircraft carriers are due to start being mothballed in 2006 anyway, to be replaced by two much larger craft, built to a design by ... Thales. So if the worse comes to the worse we could always buy a whole bunch of ... Rafale. Just threatening the US with that should get us the production line and some technology concessions ...
First of all the carriers will be a cross between the Thales Uk and the BAE design...with BAE being the main cotnractor and Thales UK the main supplier. The fact that Thales was involved doesn't mean much...don't keep your hopes up for the French having to do anything with it
Secondly, the carriers aren't to be adaptable for normal aircraft becasue of a Rafale or other plane...they'r to be so for E-2C Hawkeye AWACS planes England will get to support the JSFs...
And thirdly...they'r not scarying anyone by thinking they will acquire Rafales. Let them...and how many Rafales will they be able to fit into one of those carriers?? About half as many planes as they could have fit if they had JSF...So let them...if they dare... they'll have a 60,000 ton ship with 20 planes on it...
Quote:The Americans are really getting their knickers in a knot over this. There are factions in the Pentagon, Air Force, State Department all screaming at each other about the project, which is bound to produce various botched decisions.
Buy you'r really hoping for a failure aren't you...waving the French flag already Don't keep your hopes so high...JSF is in its infancy right now...but orders for thousands will come. And those stupid enough to drop out of it...they will remain one generation behind for the next 20-30 years then. Let them. America isn't going to do it...regardless what opponents of the system may say...America NEEDS this.
As for the French...as I said...the Rafale is perhaps the biggest flop they ever made. They'll be lucky to get 40 planes sold off for export...
The Eurofighter was an even bigger blunder. Sometimes...after you'v worked on a plane for 20 years...when technology overtakes you its best to just start all over again.
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3252
(8/3/05 2:29 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft rolesThe US has ordered 2,500...while England has ordered 60.
That US requirement is coming down all the time. I don’t think anybody has actually ordered any yet. What makes you think Britain only intends to buy 60 F35’s anyway? That’s the Navy requirement. The Airforce wants some too. The total UK order will probably be 150. As for the US ordering 2500 – what’s 30% of that ? Let’s say 900. And then there’s the Italians, the Dutch, etc, etc. You are beginning to soak up the American overestimation of US significance in the world. The combination of the huge fiscal deficit, trade imbalances, and the costs of the war in Iraq require a more realistic approach. Careful, or one day you’ll find yourself singing the Star-spangled Banner with your hand on your chest.
Waving the French flag? Moi? You want to see a real French fiasco, check out the nuclear-powered crew-irradiating Charles de Gaulle carrier. No, I think that there ought to have been better coordination of the whole European defence programme to begin with. The Aircraft carriers are a step in the right direction – France is building one too, to the same design, but equipped for CTOL. Your claim that a Rafale equipped and adapted FCB carrier could only carry half the number of aircraft is quite wrong. That’s the whole point of it being adaptable. Costs money to do it of course, but they’re not built yet, so at this stage the UK has the options, which is what is relevant to our discussion. The possibility of JSF not working out had to be taken into consideration at the planning stage in the UK, so a naval Typhoon and Rafale equipped option were catered for, as well as the possibility that the carriers would have a longer life than JSF.
Thales UK is a subsidiary of the French company. The carriers will be built in both Britain and France, to a Thales design. BAe was a competitor and is not involved in any major way in the design.
Don’t get me wrong, I think if BAe can secure the sort of deal with the US Defence Department that makes JSF profitable for BAe, that’s good for the UK. But if the arrangement cripples our ability to bomb people as and when we see fit, or to make money out of them bombing each other with equipment we have provided, it will cause a national scandal.
Re: New Generation PlanesLOCKHEED X-22A
ANTI-GRAVITY FIGHTER DISC
Information has come into the public's attention which suggests that Lockheed has been working in the "black" on a discoid-shaped aircraft. Not only does this aircraft utilise anti-gravitic propulsion, but the discs are believed to be equipped with highly advanced particle beam weaponry.
Lockheed does hold the patents on disc-shaped passenger aicraft, so it is not unreasonable to assume they have also (successfully) investigated the possibility of creating such craft as military platforms.
Colonel Steve Wilson, USAF (deceased) stated that black military astronauts trained at a secret aerospace academy and later would operate out of Beale and Vandenberg Air Force Bases in California.
From those bases, these military astronauts regularly fly trans-atmospherically and out into space. One of the aerospace craft they use, Colonel Wilson reported, is the X-22A, Lockheed's two-man anti-gravity disc craft.
Evidence for the existence of the X-22A first came to light during Operation Desert Storm when American soldiers (and most likely Iraqi soldiers as well) made sightings of disc-shaped craft in the desert hovering near to U.S. officers. People also made claims of seeing these craft fire intense beams of light that removed any trace of what previously sat at the location, apart from a circular charcoal-like burn mark on the ground.
A Desert Storm soldier stated the following: "In the first days film footage and especially Video-cams which a large number of G.I.s had were impounded so they wouldn`t capture any sensitive material."
Dr. Richard Boylan states the following about the X-22A:
"The described disc was clearly an antigravity levitating aerial weapons platform in the U.S. arsenal, possibly a Lockheed X-22A two-man discoid craft, the real DarkStar, (of which the unmanned drone X-22 DarkStar is a front "cover" aircraft program to disguise this manned antigravity fighter disc.) Further, it appears that the real DarkStar manned discs come equipped with the latest Neutral Particle Beam weapons, which take apart the target at the molecular level. ET craft do not incinerate humans. Only human military fighters are so deployed. So this report does not deal with any extraterrestrial event.
It has been said that if the American people knew what the military had in their arsenal today, they wouldn't believe it, and would think someone was fantasizing about a Lucas Star Wars movie episode
A-17 EXPERIMENTAL
STEALTH ATTACK PLANE
Generally regarded as a fourth generation low-observable design, the A-17 is believed to have evolved from the YF-23 Advanced Tactical Fighter, and will replace the F-111 Fighter Bomber. The YF-23 lost out to Lockheed's F-22, but it's technology could easily be adapted for use on other projects.
Shaped with complex curves and compound curvature, the A-17 is contoured to minimise radar and aerothermal signatures as it carries out it's mission of electronic warfare and deep reconnaissance. The engine exhaust geometry is reminiscent of the B-2, where the aft section of the engine nacelle slopes down to meet the aft trailing edge of the tail. The engine exhaust is buried deep within the trough, effectively masking the infra-red signature from observation from below. The two large vertical tail surfaces, serve to mask the exhaust from the sides.
No positively-identifiable white world pictures exist of the plane, but sightings have been reported at RAF Boscombe Down in the UK, and Cannon AFB, New Mexico.
Two events help to identify the A-17's existence.
In September 1994, an unusual aircraft was seen over Amarillo, Texas meeting the description of the A-17. The plane was dumping fuel, preparing for an emergency landing. On a scanner, the pilot, using the callsign "Omega", was heard reporting a malfunction. At the time, two F-111s were acting as chase planes.
A man named Steve Douglass captured two unusual flying triangles on video. He believes they could be A-17s, but admits they could also be F-117s, Tornados, or F-14s.
THE SUPER VALKYRIE HYPERSONIC BOMBER/SPACEPLANE
AMERICA'S SECRET SPACE PROGRAM
AND THE SUPER VALKYRIE
By Bill Rose for UFO Magazine UK
There is growing evidence that a mini-shuttle was developed shortly after the space shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986 and that the trials began in 1992.
Operating under the mysterious Aurora Project, the system is believed to comprise a spaceplane roughly the size of an SR-71 spyplane and a hypersonic launch vehicle resembling the experimental XB-70A strategic bomber designd in 1957-60. This large aircraft could perform a number of roles, but it appears to have been designed specifically to carry the smaller spaceplane to a suitable launch altitude.
Sightings of the aircraft described as a "mothership" first began in the late summer of 1990. It was said to resemble a modernized version of the highly advanced North American XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, developed for the USAF, but never put into production. Designed to achieve high efficiency through a very close integration of propulsion and aerodynamics, the XB-70 could achieve a speed of Mach 3.
On September 13 and October 3, 1990, sightings of the aircraft were made at Mojhave, near Edwards Air Force Base (AFB). Another sighting occured north of Edwards AFB in April 1991. On May 10, 1992, a journalist with CNN saw the plane flying near Atlanta, Georgia. The final sighting occurred on July 12 at 11:45p.m. near Lockheed's Hellendale Facility and because it coincided with a severe thunderstorm in the Groom Lake area, speculation arose that an emergency divert had taken place. An indication as to the aircraft's manufacturer came on January 6, 1992, when there was a sighting of an SR-71 shaped forward fuselage section being loaded onto a C-5 transport plane at the Lockheed Skunk Works facility in Burbank, California. It was about 65 to 75 feet long and 10 feet high. The C-5 was bound for Boeing Field in Seattle.
The aircraft was described as having a large delta wing and a large forward fuselage. The wingtips were upturned to form fins. The edges of the wing and fins had a blck tile covering, while the rest of the fuselage was white. The rear fuselage had a raised area with a black line extending down it. Some witnesses reported seeing a long-span canard near the nose. It was said to be about 200 feet long.
Nothing is known, however, about the aircraft's propulsion system. If the "Super-Valkyrie" has been designed as a hypersonic launch vehicle, the most likely method of propulsion would be Pulse Detonation Wave Engines (PDWEs). Operating on a different principle then conventional ramjets, PDWEs dont't continuously burn kerosene, but detonate fuel as it starts to leave the combustion chamber. This generates a regular pulse which may be responsible for producing the unusual "doughnuts-on-a-rope" contrails. The most probable fuel for PDWEs would be cryogenic liquid methane, which could also act as a structural coolant.
At 1:45p.m. on August 5, 1992, A United Airlines 747 crew reported a near miss with an unknown aircraft as the airliner headed out of Los Angeles International Airport. The airliner was in the vacinity of Georges AFB, California, when the 747's Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) warned the flight crew that an aircraft was approaching at high speed. The unidentified aircraft flew past the 747 about 500-1000 feet below it at high supersonic speed. The UFO was described as having a lifting-body configuration, much like the forward fuselage of an SR-71, and being roughly the size of an F-16. It was speculated that the aircraft was a drone that had "escaped". Could this have been the secret spaceplane?
It has been reported that the spaceplane is codenamed Brilliant Buzzard or Blue Eyes. The spaceplane has most likely been based on NASA's X-24C proposals or the highly classified USAF FDL-5 Project. The aircraft was also most likely to have been developed alongside the "North Sea" Aurora. Feasibility studies by many companies all led to the same conceptual design: A one-man delta-shaped vehicle with a 75-degree sweep.
The X-24C rocketplane was intended to follow NASA's X-24B. At the same time, the USAF was considering the black budget Lockheed FDL-5 as a successor to the X-15 rocketplane, the most successful US high-speed research aircraft with 199 flights to speeds of Mach 6.7 and altitudes of 354,200 feet. A mockup was built, and if the X-24C was fully developed and tested, it would explain why the X-24C was cancelled by NASA. It may be however, that the FDL-5 and the proposed X-24C were actually "black" and "white" versions of the same vehicle.
Despite the X-24C being officially scrapped in 1977 and NASA and the USAF apparently unable to produce enough money to build prototypes, Historian Rene Francillon, in a survey of Lockheed aircraft published in 1982, reported that Lockheed had already flown an experimental aircraft capable of sustained flight at Mach 6.
If Lockheed had developed a hypersonic vehicle like the X-24C, it is possible that technology was used in the development of the "North Sea" Aurora and the spaceplane. Testing of the vehicle would have been undertaken at the top-secret Groom Lake installation and the decision to go ahead with constructing prototypes of the "North Sea" Aurora and two-stage spaceplane may have coincided with the Challenger disaster in 1986.
The commissioning of these two systems would also explain unusual changes within the "black world" and it's "white" exterior: The Pentagon's decision to scrap the military space shuttle launch facilities at Vandenburg AFB, the appearance of a major black program in the mid-1980s, and also its appearance showing up in Lockheed's company accounts in the form of an extreme budget. Another factor reinforcing the belief that these projects left the drawing board in 1986, is the redevelopment carried out at Groom Lake. The old housing area, built for A-12 Oxcart personnel, was replaced by modern accomadation blocks. An indoor recreation facility and a new commisary were also built. Four water tanks were built and an extensive runway upgrade program was undertaken. Another improvement was the construction of a new fuel tank farm at the south end of the base, which was believed to store the liquid methane which fuelled Aurora. These improvements were initially attributed to the "North Sea" Aurora spyplane, but a larger hangar was built. Larger than the rest, this could house the "mothership", the Super-Valkyrie/ Spaceplane Project. Known as Hangar 18 by base personnel (after the Hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio), observers claim to have caught glimpses of large aircraft moving in and out of it prior to the closure of land overlooking Groom Lake in 1995. All evidence points to the existence of the Super-Valkyrie and while it's exact role remains unknown, the aircraft seems to have been primarily designed as a mothership.
The flight testing of a spaceplane would have began with a scale-sized demonsrator, used in a series of glide drops conducted from a converted B-52. Although the parent aircraft was being developed, a rocket booster may have been considered as a fall back launch system. Interestingly enough, in 1991 NASA awarded Lockheed's Skunk Works a contract to explore the possibility of developing a small lifting-body spaceplane.
A mockup of this vehicle was built and designated HL-20 PLS. If it had been built, the mini-shuttle would have been an economical alternative for transporting astronauts and pay-loads into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The project was abandoned in 1993 in favor of the X-33 Venture Star demonstrator.
Propulsion for the spaceplane is unknown and may take the form of a highly advanced scramjet running on liquid hydrogen. The vehicle will carry two crew members within an ejection capsule who observe the outside via high definition video screens and small side windows.
Assuming the spaceplane is capable of reaching LEO this will allow it to launch small military satellites, inspect foreign satellites and destroy them if necessary. The spaceplane could also carry out global reconaissance missions and deliver nuclear missiles. Current estimates suggest that as many as five spaceplanes have been built, perhaps costing as much as a Super-Valkyrie.
The Super-Valkyrie may have been built by Boeing in Seattle and then transported to Groom Lake and/or Edwards AFB for testing in total secrecy at the beginning of the 1990s. Using proven technology and modern developments, Boeing could have built as many as four of these motherships, costing $2 billion each with funding secretly diverted from "visible" projects. The likely contractor for the small spaceplane is Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works who are also believed to be the contractors of the "North Sea" Aurora. The existence of both programs seems to be confirmed by the way officials from Lockheed-Martin deny their involvement with hypersonic aircraft and their existence.
Despite official denials, the CIA is probably responsible for operating the "North Sea" Aurora and mini-shuttle programs with support from the USAF. The spaceplane probably operates from Groom Lake, Nevada and the White Sands Space Harbor, New Mexico, with reports claiming that the Super-Valkyrie has occasionally visited Wallops Island, Virginia.
From where the "North Sea" Aurora spyplanes operate is less clear, but some of the aircraft may be based at Beale AFB which is home to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing.
AURORA
Top Secret Hypersonic-Spy Plane
Background
Does the United States Air Force or one of America's intelligence agencies have a secret hypersonic aircraft capable of a Mach 6 performance? Continually growing evidence suggests that the answer to this question is yes. Perhaps the most well-known event which provides evidence of such a craft's existence is the sighting of a triangular plane over the North Sea in August 1989 by oil-exploration engineer Chris Gibson. As well as the famous "skyquakes" heard over Los Angeles since the early 1990s, found to be heading for the secret Groom Lake (Area 51) installation in the Nevada desert, numerous other facts provide an understanding of how the aircraft's technology works. Rumored to exist but routinely denied by U.S. officials, the name of this aircraft is Aurora.
The outside world uses the name Aurora because a censor's slip let it appear below the SR-71 Blackbird and U-2 in the 1985 Pentagon budget request. Even if this was the actual name of the project, it would have by now been changed after being compromised in such a manner.
The plane's real name has been kept a secret along with its existence. This is not unfamiliar though, the F-117a stealth fighter was kept a secret for over ten years after its first pre-production test flight. The project is what is technically known as a Special Access Program (SAP). More often, such projects are referred to as "black programs."
So what was the first sign of the existence of such an aircraft? On 6 March 1990, one of the United States Air Force's Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird spyplanes shattered the official air speed record from Los Angeles to Washington's Dulles Airport. There, a brief ceremony marked the end of the SR-71's operational career. Officially, the SR-71 was being retired to save the $200-$300 million a year it cost to operate the fleet. Some reporters were told the plane had been made redundant by sophisticated spy satellites.
But there was one problem, the USAF made no opposition towards the plane's retirement, and congressional attempts to revive the program were discouraged. Never in the history of the USAF had a program been closed without opposition. Aurora is the missing factor to the silent closure of the SR-71 program.
Testing such a new radical aircraft brings immense costs and inconvenience, not just in the design and development of a prototype aircraft, but also in providing a secret testing place for aircraft that are obviously different from those the public are aware of.
Groom Dry Lake, in the Nevada desert, is home to one of America's elite secret proving grounds. Here is Aurora's most likely test location. Comparing today's Groom Lake with images of the base in the 1970s, it is apparent that many of the larger buildings and hangars were added during the following decade. Also, the Groom Lake test facility has a lake-bed runway that is six miles long, twice as long as the longest normal runways in the United States. The reason for such a long runway is simple: the length of a runway is determined either by the distance an aircraft requires to accelerate to flying speed, or the distance that the aircraft needs to decelerate after landing. That distance is proportional to the speed at which lift-off takes place. Usually, very long runways are designed for aircraft with very high minimum flying speeds, and, as is the case at Edwards AFB, these are aircraft that are optimized for very high maximum speeds. Almost 19,000 feet of the runway at Groom Lake is paved for normal operations.
Lockheed's Skunk Works, now the Lockheed Advanced Development Company, is the most likely prime contractor for the Aurora aircraft. Throughout the 1980s, financial analysts concluded that Lockheed had been engaged in several large classified projects. However, they weren't able to identify enough of them to account for the company's income.
Technically, the Skunk Works has a unique record of managing large, high-risk programs under an incredible unparalleled secrecy. Even with high-risk projects the company has undertaken, Lockheed has a record of providing what it promises to deliver.
Hypersonic Speed
By 1945, only a small amount of jets had the capability of reaching speeds of 500mph. In 1960, aircraft that could exceed 1,500mph were going into squadron service. Aircraft capable of 2,000mph were under development and supposed to enter service by 1965. This was a four-fold increase in speed in two decades.
From this, the next logical step was to achieve hypersonic speed. The definition of hypersonic isn't as clearly defined as supersonic, but aerodynamicists consider that the hypersonic realm starts when the air in front of the vehicle's leading edges "stagnates": a band of air is trapped, unable to flow around the vehicle, and reaches extremely high pressures and temperatures. The edge of the hypersonic regime lies at a speed of roughly one mile per second - 3,600mph or Mach 5.4.
What is regarded by many as the most successful experimental aircraft program in USAF history, the X-15 rocketplane was created in response to a requirement issued by NASA (then NACA) for an air-launched manned research vehicle with a maximum speed of more than Mach 6 and a maximum altitude of more than fifty miles.
The X-15 program, which involved three test aircraft, went on to exceed all goals set and provided valuable data which has been used on many high speed/altitude aircraft of today, including NASA spacecraft, and most likely, the Aurora aircraft.
In the early 1960s, Lockheed and the USAF Flight Dynamics Laboratory began a hypersonic research program which would provide data on travel at hypersonic speed as well as more efficient shapes for hypersonic vehicles. From this program came the FDL-5 research vehicle, which beared an amazing resemblance to the North Sea Aurora sighting of Chris Gibson. Building on both the FDL-5 Project and Aurora, the aircraft which may have been seen over the North Sea could have been Northrop's A-17 stealth attack plane.
Possible forms of hypersonic propulsion that Aurora could be using include:
There are three reasons why the North Sea sketch drawn by Chris Gibson is the most persuasive rendition of the Aurora vehicle. Firstly, the observer's qualifications, with which he couldn't identify the aircraft; which would have been instantaneous if the aircraft was known to the "white world". Second is the fact that the North Sea aircraft corresponds almost perfectly in shape and size to hypersonic aircraft studies carried out by McDonnell Douglas and the USAF during the 1970s and 1980s. The third factor is that the North Sea aircraft looks unlike anything else. No aircraft other than a high-supersonic vehicle, or a test aircraft for such a vehicle, has ever been built or studied with a similiar planform.
At hypersonic speeds, traditional aerodynamic design gives way to aero-thermodynamic design. In order for a hypersonic vehicle to remain structurally intact at such high speeds and stresses, the vehicle must produce minimum drag and be free of design features that give rise to concentrations of heat. The aircraft design must be able to spread the heat over the surface of the structure.
Thermal management is critical to high-speed aircraft, especially hypersonic vehicles. Skin friction releases heat energy into the aircraft and must be pumped out again if the vehicle is to have any endurance. The only way to do this is to heat the fuel before it enters the engine, and dump the heat through the exhaust. On a hypersonic vehicle, thermal management is very critical, the cooling capacity of the fuel must be used carefully and efficiently or else the range and endurance of the aircraft will be limited by heating rather than the actual fuel tank capacity.
So how will an aircraft reach such speeds? Conventional turbojet engines won't be able to handle the incoming airstreams at such speeds, they can barely handle transonic speeds. In the case of hypersonic propulsion, an aero-thermodynamic duct, or ramjet, is the only engine proven to work efficiently at such speeds. Even ramjets have drawbacks though, such as drag created in the process of slowing down and compressing a Mach 6 airstream.
To make a ramjet engine efficient is to spread the air over the entire length of the body. In a hypersonic ramjet aircraft, the entire underside of the forward body acts as a ramp that compresses the air, and the entire underside of the tail is an exhaust nozzle. So much air underneath the aircraft serves another purpose, it keeps the plane up.
The ramjets need a large inlet area to provide the high thrust needed for Mach 6 cruise. As a result, the engines occupy a large area beneath vehicle and the need to accomodate a large quantity of fuel means that an all-body shape is most feasible.
Structurally, the all-body shape is highly efficient. As well as being extremely aerodynamic, the average cross-sectional area being very large provides a great deal of space for load, equipment and fuel. This being inside a structure that is light and compact having a relatively small surface area to generate frictional drag.
The spyplane's airframe may incorporate stealth technology, but it doesn't really require it should its mission simply involve high altitude reconnaissance. Hypersonic aircraft are much harder to shoot down than a ballistic missile. Although a hypersonic plane isn't very maneuverable, its velocity is such that even a small turn puts it miles away from a SAM's projected interception point.
.
Choosing The Right Fuel
Choosing the right type of fuel is crucial to the success of Aurora. Because various sections of the craft will reach cruising-speed temperatures ranging from 1,000 degrees fahrenheit to more than 1,400 degrees fahrenheit, its fuel must both provide energy for the engines and act as a structural coolant extracting destructive heat from the plane's surface.
At hypersonic speeds, even exotic kerosene such as the special high-flashpoint JP-7 fuel used by the SR-71 Blackbird can't absorb enough heat. The plausible solution is cryogenic fuel.
The best possibilities are methane and hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen provides more than three times as much energy and absorbs six times more heat per pound than any other fuel. The downfall is its low density, which means larger fuel tanks, a larger airframe and more drag. While liquid hydrogen is the fuel of choice for spacelaunch vehicles that accelerate quickly out of the atmosphere, studies have shown that liquid methane is better for an aircraft cruising at Mach 5 to Mach 7. Methane is widely available, provides more energy than jet fuels, and can absorb five times as much heat as kerosene. Compared with liquid hydrogen, it is three times denser and easier to handle.
Current Knowledge of Aurora
On 16 November 1998, a camcorder video was taken of a mysterious "fireball" in the sky. While this was very interesting, what was even more amazing was the aircraft which was seen shortly after flying at very high speed producing the mysterious "donuts-on-a-rope" contrails. Does this video, which is currently undergoing intense study at JPL, show the mysterious Aurora spyplane?
A newspaper article about this event was also written in the The Sun Herald newspaper.
Re: New aircraft roles
Bato...stop watching the movie Stealth.
Quote:That US requirement is coming down all the time. I don’t think anybody has actually ordered any yet. What makes you think Britain only intends to buy 60 F35’s anyway? That’s the Navy requirement. The Airforce wants some too. The total UK order will probably be 150. As for the US ordering 2500 – what’s 30% of that ? Let’s say 900. And then there’s the Italians, the Dutch, etc, etc. You are beginning to soak up the American overestimation of US significance in the world. The combination of the huge fiscal deficit, trade imbalances, and the costs of the war in Iraq require a more realistic approach
WHO said the US requirement is coming down?? Becasue you read it in some article...doesn't make it so.
Quote:Careful, or one day you’ll find yourself singing the Star-spangled Banner with your hand on your chest.
Cheap shot...
Quote:Your claim that a Rafale equipped and adapted FCB carrier could only carry half the number of aircraft is quite wrong. That’s the whole point of it being adaptable. Costs money to do it of course, but they’re not built yet, so at this stage the UK has the options, which is what is relevant to our discussion. The possibility of JSF not working out had to be taken into consideration at the planning stage in the UK, so a naval Typhoon and Rafale equipped option were catered for, as well as the possibility that the carriers would have a longer life than JSF.
Carriers alwasy have a longer life than the planes they carry...but I don't think anyone is looking for a plane from 2040. Secondly...the number of planes a carrier can carry doesn't matter on "adptability"...its a simple concept of phsyics that two molecules cannot occupy the same space An Aircraft carrier of that size with 60,000 ton displacement has a limited room for aircraft no matter how many "modifications" you may make of it. Currently each carrier can only carry about 30-40 JSF. Thats not a lot of planes to begin with. Get in there a plane like the Rafale which needs more space to take off and more space to land and is overall bigger...and you'r not left with more space than fro 20 planes in total.
Maybe you'r not understanding what "modifications" mean. They don't mean they can suddenly make the carrier 3 times bigger. The catapults on the carrier aren't there to launch rafales. They'r there to launch E-2C AWACs planes.
And no...there is NO CARRIER BORNE version of the Eurofighter. As I said earlier navalised is DIFERERNT from being carrier borne.
Quote:Thales UK is a subsidiary of the French company. The carriers will be built in both Britain and France, to a Thales design. BAe was a competitor and is not involved in any major way in the design.
Nop...despite your best hopes I'm sure... ...nothing will be build in France. The British government decalred that BAE would be the main contractor for the two carriers...to be build FULLY in the UK...with Thales UK as the main supplier...and KBR as the main integrator (KBR being a US company BTW...so there goes your whole French conspirancy theory)
Quote:Don’t get me wrong, I think if BAe can secure the sort of deal with the US Defence Department that makes JSF profitable for BAe, that’s good for the UK. But if the arrangement cripples our ability to bomb people as and when we see fit, or to make money out of them bombing each other with equipment we have provided, it will cause a national scandal.
There is no "turn off" switch which Locheed can switch on and off remotely from the US for these aircraft. So England will still be free to bomb into oblivion any starving African country of its choisng...and I don't think the US will stop sullying parts or weapons to England regardless of which starving African country they chose to bomb into oblivion.
But there are some things about buying foreing...that are ALWASY to be taken into consideration...adn this is one of them. If England doesn't want foreign...then let it go at it alone...but of course it CAN'T so it is forced into this deal...whether it likes it or not.
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Re: New aircraft roles
About the Stealth,The moovie is been based in real projects of US Department of Defence,......Don't be closeminded,.....The same think was said about the First Generation of Stealth in 80s(was just a myth),but in reality was true....The science is going forward my dear Friend
Quote:About the Stealth,The moovie is been based in real projects of US Department of Defence,......Don't be closeminded,.....The same think was said about the First Generation of Stealth in 80s(was just a myth),but in reality was true....The science is going forward my dear Friend
Yeah but its about 50 years away before an airplane like that will ever fly...and even longer before the develop an aritificial brain for it.
The UCAV's being tested today are nothing more than overgrown toys...they'r as stupid as a rock...and I just don't understand with what mentality they come up with such projects. You have some UCAVs armed with 1-2 bombs each to go into enemy air space to bomb a high value target which manned planes can't get to becasue of high risk. Ok...but what makes them think that a stupid as a rock UCAV will get to it?? Heck...if the enemy puts in the air even an Albanian MiG-17 they will shoot it down becasue the UCAV has no self-defense means...so its a toy about 50 years away from development. The only reason I canthink of is that if many of these things are shot down...the US still looks good becasue no pilot is lost or captured...and no one cares if a UAV goes down anyway (they'r never even reported on the news)
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Re: New aircraft roles
can any one tell me where does Galeb ,super G, g-4m stands as a plane is it better equiped than a mig 21 .How many does Serbia have in use......... who made this plane.........at what cost was sold .......what countries is still using this type of plane . and if u have any information about Yugo-Romanian coperation for building fighter planes during communism send'm in .
Re: New aircraft roles
The original Galeb...the G-2...was a piece of crap that no one uses anymore. The Super Galeb...the G-4...is what Serbia still uses. It can't compare to a MiG-21 at all. Its not supersonic...so it doesn't have the speed. Its not as manuvrable as a MiG-21 which is one of the best dogfighters in the world. It doesn't have a radar at all...and it doesn't carry air-air missiles at all.
Serbia has about 24 planes still alive...but only about 12 or so of them can fly. They'r really not a threat to us at all...
The G-4M was a project they started in the early 90s to modernize the G-4. It was a minor modification...just to allow it to carry air-air missiles and some other weapons. The prototype was build in 1999...and it was bombed into dust by NATO in 1999. Since then its a paper airplane...it won't go anywhere...
As for Yugo-Romanian cooperation...they made the J-22 Orao togather. This was mostly a Romanian design though...The Orao was a good ground attack plane...but still nothing special or nothing really above a MiG-21 in ground attack. There are no more Oraos in Serbia...none can fly anymore and they have been grounded and will soon be withdrawn. Romania keeps flying some and has tried to modernize them...but no luck.
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3255
(8/5/05 11:01 am) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
These aircraft carriers – there are three of them, two for the Brits, one for the French. The idea now is to build a common core (80%) for all three ships. Possibly, two thirds of the work will be done in Britiain and one-third in France. It’s a very long and very complicated saga, admirably covered in painstaking detail here
And it aint over yet.
Quote:In September 2002 the selection of the STOVL variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF was announced, and it seemed that the two consortia could finally focus on a single design concept - STOVL. However given that the new carriers are planned to have a service life of up to fifty years - longer than that expected for the aircraft - BAE Systems and Thales, were simultaneously asked by the MOD to opt for a design which could be adapted to operate more conventional (CTOL) aircraft types if it became necessary later in the ships' lives. To this end, the ships had to have the capability to be fitted with catapults and arrestor gear, although they would initially be built with a "ski-ramp" for STOVL operations.
The MOD's preference for Thales was leaked to the press in late January and unleashed considerable controversy - the carrier programme becoming one of the most controversial and politically charged defence contracts of recent years. Wrapping itself in the Union Jack, BAE Systems responded with a major lobbying campaign and trade unions complained about the certain loss of jobs to France (Thales being one third owned by the French government). In a typical press report, Jack Dromey, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, is quoted as saying: "Ministers should buy British, boosting the Scottish shipyards. No French Government would ever buy British aircraft carriers." BAE fuelled the flames by "coincidently" announcing plans to cut 1,045 jobs in its shipbuilding business. But set against this was serious MOD dissatisfaction with BAE's performance on the already awarded Astute submarine and Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft contracts.
To cut a long story short, the Thales’ design won out completely, and although BAE were prime contractor for a while, they pissed the Ministry of Defence off so much that they lost the role and were to some extent marginalized, though obviously still playing an important role, since they own many UK shipyards and are the major UK defence contractor. KBR’s ‘physical integrator’ role, that both Thales and BAe believe is irrelevant, has also been downgraded.
Quote:Soon after this (April 2004) the MOD (apparently feeling that it was being excessively pressurised, even blackmailed, by BAE Systems) sent a letter to BAE Systems formally informing it that it was no longer regarded as the preferred Prime Contractor for the CVF D&M contract.
Quote:It was agreed that KBR would primarily act on the DPA’s behalf as a Programme Manager for the CVF Demonstration and Manufacture Phase. KBR would be responsible for developing and proposing the optimum build strategy for approval by the Alliance participants, creating and maintaining the programme Master Schedule, and providing support to the MoD on drawing up and negotiating the Alliance contracts. The MOD also agreed to BAE’s demand that KBR should not directly oversee the design and manufacture of the ships, or be able to allocate such work. Instead, a new team will now be set up to manage and undertake this task, although the Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach has warned that “The MoD, as client, will of course retain the right to have the final say on all work allocation and selection decisions". This statement can be taken as a clear sign that the government wants final assembly to be done at the Rosyth dockyard, not the KBR owned Nigg fabrication facility.
The adaptability for CTOL and arrested landing was one of the core design parameters. This is NOT a question of helicopters or other marginalia, but a fundamental feature. Nor is it anticipated that this would result in a fundamental reduction of aircraft carrying capacity. The complement of F35’s is assumed to be at most 36 for wartime operations, very similar to the 32 Rafale’s + 3 Hawkeyes envisaged for the French version of the carriers, the PA2. So should the MoD drop out of the F35 programme in the next 12 months, they would just build the carrier decks differently from the start. See here and here
Quote:The 'adaptable' CVF design will thus include provisions for the retrofit of catapults and arrestor gear at a later date. Before the main landing deck is laid the necessary systems for steam-catapult launches and arrester-wire landings will be incorporated, so any later rebuild becomes easier and less costly. The ski-jump will be of something of a "bolt on nature". There will be voids where the cats and arrestor gear would be fitted, and although marked out for STOVL operations the flight deck form will effectively incorporate an angled deck - which could be easily modified in to a landing lane for arrested aircraft landings. If the decision is eventually made to convert the carriers to CTOL type operations , the CVF's will return to a dockyard to have their 'top' taken off and remodelled during a major refit. A new flight deck will be fitted with catapults, arrestor gear and angled flight deck all in place. The command centres will also need to be be altered, and appropriate provision for this will be incorporated into the initial build.
BTW, you still aren’t providing sources. Much as I respect your evident expertise in these matters, I would like to know the particular bias and the dates of the documents you’re working from. Edited by: BibleRiot at: 8/5/05 4:40 pm
Says nothing about BAE being dropped or any other such fantasy...nor of any component of the carrier beign build in France...or having ANYTHING to do with any ficticious French carrier design (that "project" is a palstic model right now...and many many many years away from even being considered for selection let alone production)
Don't believe everything you read on the net...take it with a grain of salt...the link I gave you at least is an indisutry link so its not some random guys' personal website (which is what your links go to...some guys personal website)
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Quote:Its not supersonic...so it doesn't have the speed. Its not as manuvrable as a MiG-21 which is one of the best dogfighters in the world. It doesn't have a radar at all...and it doesn't carry air-air missiles at all.
hmmmmmm I am getting the idea ..... It's something like this looooooooooool
Quote of the Year by Novi Pazar:
Quote:Peshky, why do u have Scanderbeg, a serbian as your poster hero???????
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3265
(8/6/05 12:19 am) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
OK, first even the one page site you ref says:
Quote:No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds.
Not just for helicopters then.
Secondly, the site I referenced is extremely well documented and verifiable. I think I can tell the difference between teenage blather and something with real info behind it, and I’m surprised you couldn’t. Overhasty? I’ve checked each of the key propositions it advanced, from independent sources; the defence correspondents of the best national newspapers in Britain, in fact. What did you offer? A Public Relations company.
I’m not sure what you’re disputing:
1) That the design that won the MOD competition is the Thales one and not the BAE one?
Quote:Geoff Hoon, defence secretary, confirmed that BAE is to take the lead role within the alliance as prime contractor for designing and building the two 60,000-tonne carriers which will be built at four British yards, heralding a rebirth of British shipbuilding and 2,000 new jobs.
But, in what analysts saw as a pyrrhic victory for BAE, the government went out of its way to praise Thales, naming it a "key supplier" responsible for the design of the carriers and a range of other key elements, including electronic warfare and the ships' "interface" with the 48 new joint strike fighters, F35s, they will each carry.
From here: www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,886031,00.html
2) That BAE later lost its position as preferred Prime Contractor (preferred ain’t even actual, but in fact the MoD forced them to adopt a joint ‘Alliance’ role with Thales, despite BAE's objections) ?
Quote:BAE was unhappy that its role as prime contractor was open to competition in the first place, and when two years ago it appeared that its rival, Thales, had won the competition to be prime, it channelled its fury into negotiating its way on to the top table as a project manager, shifting Thales to a design role. The MoD, however, would not demote Thales, and insisted on the two companies forming the alliance, with the MoD joining as mediator.
From here www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1406768,00.html
3) That the Haliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root was given a lesser role as a result of pressure from BAE?
Quote:BAE has threatened to pull out of the alliance of 'prime' contractors formed to build the ships because a subsidiary of controversial US company Halliburton has been made ultimate overseer of the £3 billion programme. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, who appears to have agreed to limit the role of Halliburton, has set a deadline of tonight to resolve the dispute.
From here: observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1406704,00.html
4) That cooperation with the builders of the French PA2 is very much part of the evolving shape of the project?
Quote:Britain and France are set to share the costs of designing and building three aircraft carriers in a further rapprochement since the rows over the war in Iraq, political and industry sources said yesterday.
The French government is understood to have rejected domestic pressures to build a nuclear-powered sister ship for the Charles de Gaulle and to have opted for conventional propulsion instead.
Its decision, yet to be announced, paves the way for an historic work-share programme for British and French companies such as BAE Systems, Thales and Rolls-Royce on two British and one French carrier.
See here www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1146094,00.html and here www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/06/19/cnship19.xml
All this much to the distress of the Daily Telegraph eurohostile Little Englander yankipoodles. The stuff below, you really can take with a large pinch of salt. But the fact is that the current board of directors of BAE has to go. Even the major investors in the City think their project management stinks, and that the way they have tried to bully the Ministry of Defence is a disgrace. Neither French nor US defence contractors would get away with it. Thank God BAE’s monopoly has finally been broken. Incidentally, did you know the Thales gained its entry into the UK by buying up the defence arm of Racal, the brilliantly managed and innovative British company that spawned … Vodaphone?
Quote:In 20 years' time, a new study predicts, almost the only thing British about Britain's Armed Forces will be the men and women serving in them, and the Union Flags sewn on their Chinese-made uniforms to distinguish them from their EU colleagues.
A wealth of evidence has come to light to show how, over the next two decades, the British Army will have been almost wholly reorganised and re-equipped as part of the European Rapid Reaction Force (ERRF), directed from Brussels, using equipment supplied almost entirely by other countries in the EU. No longer will it be technically or politically possible for Britain's Armed Forces to fight independently, or in alliance with those of the US.
Yet the scale and the speed of this astonishing transformation has been deliberately concealed by the Ministry of Defence - to the point where British firms are being instructed to buy foreign-made defence equipment which can be relabelled to look as though it is British-made. This startling picture emerges from an exhaustive study of current British and EU defence planning carried out by Dr Richard North, for a paper to be published this autumn on "The Secret Realignment of UK Defence Policy".
Britain's abandonment of its military co-operation with the US in favour of integration with our European "partners" has been prompted by the forthcoming revolution in warfare centred on satellites, electronics, and a new generation of vehicles, unmanned aircraft and weapons systems. Almost across the board, the MoD is turning its back on joint defence projects with the US, even where these involve British firms, in favour of equipment supplied or developed by firms in France, Germany, Italy and Sweden.
In the plan for integrating British forces into the 60,000 strong ERRF, with its command centre in Brussels, the key to co-ordinating future operations will be satellite systems that are largely French-built, led by Galileo, the EU's planned rival to the US GPS system. British troops will no longer be transported by US-built C130 and C17 aircraft, but by the A400M "Eurolifter". Under the £14 billion project known as Fres (Future Rapid Effects System), their armoured fighting vehicles will be supplied by Sweden and fitted with French guns and ammunition.
Joint US-British bids to supply £1.6-billion-worth of trucks were rejected in favour of Austrian-built models, with the name of the former British firm ERF added to imply a British contribution. US and other non-EU reconnaissance vehicles were rejected in favour of obsolescent and far more expensive ones from the Italian firm Iveco, although their origin is again disguised behind the name of the British firm BAE Land Systems.
A joint project with the US to develop a 155mm howitzer has been dropped in favour of a French gun firing German-designed shells. Battlefield radar systems are being built in Germany and Sweden. The development of unmanned aircraft - a vital element in future tactics - is led by France, while the RAF's main strike aircraft will be the Eurofighter, firing French-made missiles.
So the list continues, for projects large and small - not forgetting the three giant carriers to be shared between the Royal Navy and the French, with the French firm Thales playing a major part in the design and building. The consistent pattern in all this procurement policy is that, wherever possible, US firms are excluded, even where this means excluding British firms associated with them.
Such a gulf is now opening up between the US and EU defence forces that, on the battlefields of the future, co-ordinated by electronics and satellites, it will be impossible for them to fight alongside each other. And yet - while the evidence for what is going on can be found by anyone who knows how to use the internet - our politicians have so far remained astonishingly silent. In this respect our Opposition is almost as culpable as our ministers. From the Daily Telegraph 32/07/2005.
Re: New aircraft roles
Sigh...this is getting old and tedious...having to discuss every pointless irrelevent detail for no reason at all. BR...do you have a perticular point to make??
Quote:OK, first even the one page site you ref says:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not just for helicopters then.
Sigh...BR...WHO said it was only for helicopters?? Did you read what I said??? I said the carrier will ALSO operate conventional aircraft...like the E-2C AWACS. There are many types of conventional aircraft a carrier can operate BESIDES figthers...like ASW aircraft, AWACS aircraft and others...the primary reason fro having a conventional system on the carrier is to operate E-2Cs...
NO ONE SAID HELICOPTERS...
Quote:Secondly, the site I referenced is extremely well documented and verifiable. I think I can tell the difference between teenage blather and something with real info behind it, and I’m surprised you couldn’t. Overhasty? I’ve checked each of the key propositions it advanced, from independent sources; the defence correspondents of the best national newspapers in Britain, in fact. What did you offer? A Public Relations company.
That website is some dude's personal website...nothing more...
Quote:) That the design that won the MOD competition is the Thales one and not the BAE one?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Hoon, defence secretary, confirmed that BAE is to take the lead role within the alliance as prime contractor for designing and building the two 60,000-tonne carriers which will be built at four British yards, heralding a rebirth of British shipbuilding and 2,000 new jobs.
But, in what analysts saw as a pyrrhic victory for BAE, the government went out of its way to praise Thales, naming it a "key supplier" responsible for the design of the carriers and a range of other key elements, including electronic warfare and the ships' "interface" with the 48 new joint strike fighters, F35s, they will each carry.
From here: www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,886031,00.html
Sigh...once more...WHERE in this whole thing does it say that BAE ISN"T the prime contractor...and DIDN'T I ALSO SAY that Thales is the main supplier??
You'r repeating all the things I said...
Quote:2) That BAE later lost its position as preferred Prime Contractor (preferred ain’t even actual, but in fact the MoD forced them to adopt a joint ‘Alliance’ role with Thales, despite BAE's objections) ? BAE was unhappy that its role as prime contractor was open to competition in the first place, and when two years ago it appeared that its rival, Thales, had won the competition to be prime, it channelled its fury into negotiating its way on to the top table as a project manager, shifting Thales to a design role.
The MoD, however, would not demote Thales, and insisted on the two companies forming the alliance, with the MoD joining as mediator.
From here www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1406768,00.html
Jesus...WHERE does it say there that BAE ISN'T the prime contracotr?? It only says its an "alliance" between BAE and Thales...meaning BAE as the prime contractor and Thales as the prime supplier.
This is what I say...this is what the link I gave says...thi sis what you'r saying.
Jesus...
Quote:3) That the Haliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root was given a lesser role as a result of pressure from BAE?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAE has threatened to pull out of the alliance of 'prime' contractors formed to build the ships because a subsidiary of controversial US company Halliburton has been made ultimate overseer of the £3 billion programme. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, who appears to have agreed to limit the role of Halliburton, has set a deadline of tonight to resolve the dispute.
From here: observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1406704,00.html
Ok...and your POINT is??
Quote:4) That cooperation with the builders of the French PA2 is very much part of the evolving shape of the project?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain and France are set to share the costs of designing and building three aircraft carriers in a further rapprochement since the rows over the war in Iraq, political and industry sources said yesterday.
The French government is understood to have rejected domestic pressures to build a nuclear-powered sister ship for the Charles de Gaulle and to have opted for conventional propulsion instead.
Its decision, yet to be announced, paves the way for an historic work-share programme for British and French companies such as BAE Systems, Thales and Rolls-Royce on two British and one French carrier.
See here www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1146094,00.html and here www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/06/19/cnship19.xml
Jesus!! The French havn't even SELECTED a desgin yet...They are TALKING WITH THE BRITISH to sahre the same design...so if ANYTHING...its the French who are getting the desgin from the British.
The P2 project on the website YOU gave...is a DIFFERENT DESIGN from Thales that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BRITISH CARRIER. Look at the pictures...they are entirely different designs...
The British carriers are to be build 100% in ENGLAND and the design is a COMBINATION of the BEA and the Thales design...France if anything is TRYING to do something similar.
You make everything the Guardain rgiths as if it is a done job...
----------
"Keni me pas kompjuter n cdo dhom jo pentium dy e tre por pes!"
-Dr.Rrumpalla, qyteti "Studenti"
"Jam shum i gzue qe po marr pjes nhidherimin tuej"
- Dr. Rrumpalla
Sali! Enver! Jemi Gati Kurdohere!
O Sali, ill i karvanit,
shpetimtari i vatanit;
o Sali, ill i pashuar
ne gjith' boten i degjuar!
Lumturi neve na solle,
ka armiqte na shpetove,
planet ua shkaterrove,
neper plehra i hodhe.
Rrofsh, Sali, me gjith' PD-ne,
Lumturi per Shqiperine!
Me PD-ne dhe Saline
jemi gati kurdohere
Shqiperin' ta zbukurojme,
demokracine te ndertojme.
O Sali, ill i vertete,
te na rrosh njemile vjet!
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3271
(8/6/05 9:51 am) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
Well, as I see it, this is what the press are saying:
1) The retrofit adaptability is about the possibility of running a full complement of CTOL aircraft using arrested landing and catapults, not just a few AWAC’s.
2) BAE is no longer the prime contractor, Thales is an equal partner. BAE aren’t in charge anymore, the MoD is. That’s what 'alliance' means. This represents a major shift in MoD policy, a final snapping of temper about BAE's tactics.
3) The French PA2 will probably be up to 80% the same ship as the British carrier, using the Thales design and the differently adapted deck. That’s why it offers many savings through cost sharing. It’s very much open to question whether the British carriers will be built entirely in England, or if the French carrier will be built entirely in France. As the Telegraph said in July this year “If a "common build" strategy is agreed, France would be given a third of the work on the carriers.” The carriers, plural, not the one French carrier.
We'll just have to agree to differ. Anyway, I’ve learned an enormous amount through this discussion, especially about the British defence industry and why it keeps cocking up. Thanks for your help. Maybe we'll revisit this when the Singapore decision comes up in a month's time.
Senior Moderator
Posts: 3291
(8/9/05 4:08 pm) Reply
Re: New aircraft roles
96? That's quite a big order. Why aren't they buying American? Who do they think they might have to use them against?
Quote:Saudis pledge to buy French jets in €6bn dealBy Jean-Pierre Neu in Paris
Published: April 15 2005 Financial Times
Saudi Arabia has agreed in principle to acquire up to 96 Rafale combat aircraft from France's Dassault Aviation for some €6bn, Les Echos, the FT's French sister newspaper, has learnt.
The agreement forms the cornerstone of a broader defence, security and industrial accord estimated to be worth up to €20bn ($26bn, £14bn) signed during a meeting in Paris yesterday between Jacques Chirac, French president, and Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler.
they'll have a 60,000 ton ship with 20 planes on it...
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies