|
Jarmak posted:Are you serious with this poo poo? He's talking about the skill of getting multiple tasks done simultaneously, not literally the threadcount of your brain. I can't wait to meet a person who responds to "I listened to the radio while driving" with "No, technically, you did not!"
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Wheeee posted:I like to think that the USMC brass were sold on the power of VTOL and demanded a new Harrier because of True Lies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
I know we love trashing the F-35 shiftiest, but has there been any good reports on how it's in-service competitors [Rafale, Eurofighter, etc] have been doing (performance, issues, etc)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I know we love trashing the F-35 shiftiest, but has there been any good reports on how it's in-service competitors [Rafale, Eurofighter, etc] have been doing (performance, issues, etc)? In all fairness the Eurofighter had a pretty painful over budget development but at least it was a fundamentally poo poo airframe like the F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
The Typhoon is hilariously expensive for what it is, and had terrible cost overruns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The Typhoon is hilariously expensive for what it is, and had terrible cost overruns. Also laid the groundwork for the F-35 as far as "mistake" planes go in the first run of production, that either have to be retrofitted to be fully capable or sent to the boneyard to be parted out a couple decades after they're purchased because that's more cost effective than trying to upgrade them to the fully capable standard. Actually in fairness to the F-35 I think the Eurofighter's Tranche concept is probably more retarded than the idea of concurrency...which is really saying something because concurrency was and is loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Actually in fairness to the F-35 I think the Eurofighter's Tranche concept is probably more retarded than the idea of concurrency...which is really saying something because concurrency was and is loving retarded. Don't a few countries already intend to trash a bunch of first tranche Eurofighters because of the upgrading thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 08:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!|
The eurofighter is expensive and has been retasked for a million purposes, but it's not a bad plane.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
They should've called it the Raptorex or something and the US would've bought out the whole supply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I know we love trashing the F-35 shiftiest, but has there been any good reports on how it's in-service competitors [Rafale, Eurofighter, etc] have been doing (performance, issues, etc)? Eurofighter has been plagued by technical issues (cost overruns, delays, lack of spare parts, design changes between tranches big enough to prevent retrofitting the older models, etc.). The RAF is planning on scrapping or mothballing its Tranche 1 aircraft when they get their replacement. The Typhoon is barely starting to get the upgrades needed to use it in air-to-ground; it's still just an air dominance fighter/interceptor as of now; when they've been used to bomb some stuff in Libya, they had to be accompanied by Tornado that did the laser designation for them. Rafale's pretty good on that front. It has never been over budget, it was only delayed when the program was put on hold because of budget cuts, and the older airframe have been retrofitted to the latest standard without a hitch. It also has had its updates to make it fully multirole much sooner. On the stealth front, Rafale flew over Libyan air defense without being detected in Operation Harmattan, and was the only aircraft to successfully avoid detection by Slovakia's SA-10 in the MACE XIII exercises. The Gripen is a smaller, lighter single-engine fighter. It doesn't offer the raw performances of its "cousins", but it's cost-effective and more affordable for a small country with a small defense budget. Even then, most of the export customers have them on a lease, instead of buying them. blowfish posted:Don't a few countries already intend to trash a bunch of first tranche Eurofighters because of the upgrading thing? The UK does, because they can afford to replace them. Germany is trying to sell them instead, like they already sold 15 of them to Austria (thanks to bribes).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Eurofighter has been plagued by technical issues (cost overruns, delays, lack of spare parts, design changes between tranches big enough to prevent retrofitting the older models, etc.). The RAF is planning on scrapping or mothballing its Tranche 1 aircraft when they get their replacement. The Typhoon is barely starting to get the upgrades needed to use it in air-to-ground; it's still just an air dominance fighter/interceptor as of now; when they've been used to bomb some stuff in Libya, they had to be accompanied by Tornado that did the laser designation for them. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
It's worth noting that on day 1 of Operation Harmattan, the US launched over 100 cruise missiles, shredding Libyan air defenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's worth noting that on day 1 of Operation Harmattan, the US launched over 100 cruise missiles, shredding Libyan air defenses. The French Air Force flew over Benghazi several hours before that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
There was I think 6 Gripens taking part in a recon role, its first "combat" deployment. Comparison wise it's like a (more modern) F-16 compared to a F-15. The Rafale/Eurofighter are a whole lot more expensive to buy and run, so every country that's not in the weight-class of at least Spain or Italy prefer to get more cheaper/easier planes to handle (Brazil and South Africa being the biggest customer), or fewer and cheaper planes (like Thailand, Czech, Hungary et al). The problem for Eurojets in general is that they simply have much smaller production runs, like 1/5th-1/10th of the American counterpart, so should at least in theory (...mhm) be more expensive than the American jets, taking economics of scale into account. And due to often being built as a joint effort, you get the US problem (but worse) of every state wanting to have their piece of the jobs/tech-pie. Noted exceptions: Gripen, Rafale (because they didn't end up being joint ventures).
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
I don't know why nobody brings up the Tornado in this discussion, which was another plane made by international committee.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I don't know why nobody brings up the Tornado in this discussion, which was another plane made by international committee. The Panavia Tornado was a good plane; but it's an old swing-wing design which makes it more expensive to maintain. (Same reason the US got rid of the F-14.) If you like older planes, there's the SEPECAT Jaguar as well. It was quite successful, but it has been retired a few years ago by its primary operators. It's still flying in the Indian Air Force. The Tornado is supposed to be retired soon, but its operational existence has been prolonged because of the Eurofighter program's delays. (The "air defense variant", while newer than the original interdictor/strike version, has already been retired in Europe for this reason; Typhoon can handle air defense needs.) And of course, the most famous international plane isn't a warbird but a passenger liner: the Concorde.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
I think that it's pretty funny that the French and the Swedes built the most critically-acclaimed modern aircraft, despite all the national stereotyping to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I'm kinda amaze at everyone in this thread having a hard-on for gripen when it's the subject of national scorn over here at least once every year. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Well the Swedes have long manufactured and sold world class weapon systems despite their 'neutrality'. And stereotypes about the French are mostly dumb and unfounded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I'm kinda amaze at everyone in this thread having a hard-on for gripen when it's the subject of national scorn over here at least once every year. Sure, but the F-35 and the Typhoon are the subject of national scorn just about every month. That's twelve times the scorn!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
I watched From The Earth To The Moon recently, and the problems involved with the Apollo lander piqued my interest in project management. What characterizes a successful aerospace project? Is there any particular project you would consider an ideal model for aircraft development?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I'm kinda amaze at everyone in this thread having a hard-on for gripen when it's the subject of national scorn over here at least once every year. It's all relative. You may have some fuckups but they're farts I'm a tornado compared to the US's. Are Russian and Chinese planes really significantly cheaper, or is it a bit of smoke and mirrors when it comes to accounting? If so, could their design/procurement system actually be less corrupt than in the US or are the planes just inferior design/build quality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:
Probably a little bit of all of those things. They are cheaper but the real costs are less transparent. Russian designs are not really that technologically inferior to current western stuff. They just can't afford to build as many of them. Chinese designs are mostly ripoffs of other people's stuff. I doubt their processes are less corrupt. But I do imagine they are simpler and more direct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
The Russians tend to really press every ounce of performance out of their planes and especially the engines at the cost of engine-life. They build them real easy to swap out though, which makes for a more centralized repair/replacement setup (great for your paranoid dicatorship). The most expensive thing on a modern fighter is the avionics parts, and Russian designs tend to be lighter/simpler/behind on that particular front (maybe they've catched up now, but cold-war speaking). Finally they built an assload of stuff like the MiG-21 (variants still built by China), pushing down prices that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:It's all relative. You may have some fuckups but they're farts I'm a tornado compared to the US's. In terms of performance, very few people are in a position to make even an informed guess about 1:1 comparisons between Western & Russian/Chinese systems, and they aren't talking. Comparing commercial jet engine products, Russian designs tend to be worse than western ones, but usually from a maintenance and MTBF perspective than raw performance. Chinese engines are not good, to the point that they're effectively dependent on imports, but their government has been spending billions on engine R&D recently. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's worth noting that on day 1 of Operation Harmattan, the US launched over 100 cruise missiles, shredding Libyan air defenses. Cat Mattress posted:The French Air Force flew over Benghazi several hours before that.  Choice excerpts: quote:Libya possesses one of the most robust air defense networks on the African continent, falling second only to Egypt in terms of coverage and operational systems. Libyan strategic SAM assets are primarily arrayed along the coastline, ostensibly defending the bulk of the Libyan population and preventing foreign incursion into Libyan airspace. Well at least we don't have to worry about planes being shot down  )
fade5 fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to accounting. The various design bureaus tend to be incredibly corrupt, protective and catty, relying on politicians to steer projects their way, so about par with the western defense sector. Chinese R&D, aka stealing everything not nailed down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Wasn't Benghazi the rebel held stronghold that we intervened to stop a massacre at? One would assume if they held the city they also held the air defense sites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The French Air Force flew over Benghazi several hours before that. As an American, I've just been triggered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wasn't Benghazi the rebel held stronghold that we intervened to stop a massacre at? One would assume if they held the city they also held the air defense sites.  Right, yeah that makes sense. Sorry, the Libyan civil war was a few years ago now, and I'm also not used to thinking of Benghazi as an actual place anymore.Dusty Baker 2 posted:As an American, I've just been triggered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wasn't Benghazi the rebel held stronghold that we intervened to stop a massacre at? One would assume if they held the city they also held the air defense sites. Pretty much. This is also why Syrian rebels, back when they thought the US might actually bomb Assad's forces, were doggedly pursuing every SAM site they could reasonably attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Pretty much. This is also why Syrian rebels, back when they thought the US might actually bomb Assad's forces, were doggedly pursuing every SAM site they could reasonably attack. I thought we did?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I thought we did? Any bombing of Syrian forces is either incidental or classified to hell or something done by Israel that neither Israel nor Syria want to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I watched From The Earth To The Moon recently, and the problems involved with the Apollo lander piqued my interest in project management. What characterizes a successful aerospace project? Is there any particular project you would consider an ideal model for aircraft development? Keep requirements reasonable and don't allow requirements creep. Also limit multi-role/function poo poo to the bare minimum necessary. Budget realistically but appropriately. Set appropriate and realistic milestones and hold the contractor to those milestones. 90% solutions on time and under budget are better than 150% solutions a decade late and at 75% cost overruns. In the real world none of this stuff is possible (just speaking about the US defense establishment here) because... - The only way programs get approved now is if they are gold-plated and advertised as literally the best thing in the history of warfare* - The more multi-role/joint/etc a program is, the easier it is to convince the powers that be that the above bullet is true. - Realistic budgeting isn't possible because no one wants to tell Congress the true cost of something, so they play accounting games and then act shocked when the program has "overruns" that in reality were really expected all along. - No one holds contractors accountable because the people who are supposed to be doing that for the government (the relevant Program Office) are in bed with their respective contractor(s). - 90% solutions never get greenlit*, and once something is greenlit it is too big to fail (because of bullet points 1 and 2) so it doesn't matter how late it is or how significant the overruns are, it's coming regardless. * Exceptions are stuff that is developed as a result of an urgent operational need or as a plan B because the gold-plated plan A failed spectacularly to the point where it gets cancelled (this doesn't happen too often, ref: the last bullet point). A good example of the former is MRAPs (in concept, not in timing or the whole "urgent" thing)...but even programs of this nature have their own issues. Witness the pain it took to get MRAPs fielded, or the issues they ran into once they were fielded, or the fact that we bought quite a bit more than we needed so now we're literally scrapping some in Afghanistan rather than bring them home because that's cheaper than shipping them back. A good example of the latter is the Super Hornet. Without getting too into the weeds it was developed largely as a result of the A-12 debacle, which left the Navy in the early '90s up poo poo creek without a realistic strike aircraft replacement for the aging A-6 and A-7. (Incidentally, the A-12 was such a disaster that it was in litigation for 23 years after the cancellation decision was made to figure out whether or not the contractors in question had to pay back the money that had been spent prior to cancellation...about $2B.) The SH is largely considered a success...it came in on time, on budget, and under-weight (big deal for a Navy plane). It did this by making a whole bunch of performance compromises to ensure it met all those goals...since it was plan B (and there was no plan C) programmatic requirements were a larger driver than performance specs because the program absolutely had to succeed. For example, the SH's range isn't very good for a plane in its class; this is due in large part to the fact that its pylons are canted a couple degrees out, which massively increases drag when carrying external stores. This compromise was made because there were stores separation issues discovered early in development, and the alternative to canting out the pylons was a (costly) complete redesign of the wing. Another example of compromises was in LO performance. The Navy had their gold plated stealth design program blow up in their faces (the A-12), so with the SH they wanted some RCS reductions but didn't want to spend the money/development time/programmatic risk for full blown LO. This good behavior meeting programmatic objectives meant that the system actually had a reasonable amount of time for development, testing, and evaluation, which eliminated concurrency buffoonery (and the attendant cost increases that almost always drives.) People (myself included) will rag on the SH whenever people trot it out as a great fighter...but as an acquisitions program it has/had a lot going for it. Bottom line is that having Carrier Air Wings full of Super Bugs now, even with their compromise driven limitations is a drat sight better than the alternative, which would've been Carrier Air Wings with a diminishing number of rapidly aging legacy Hornets, probably a significant portion of money spent to SLEP the F-14s to get another couple years out of them, and a rapidly growing impatience to get F-35s out in the fleet in some form. Incidentally, this is almost exactly the situation the USMC finds themselves in between their Harrier/legacy Hornet fleet and the F-35B, mostly because their leadership didn't want to buy any SH's because they're not "expeditionary" or something. Dead Reckoning posted:There is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to accounting. The various design bureaus tend to be incredibly corrupt, protective and catty, relying on politicians to steer projects their way, so about par with the western defense sector. And of course there's the overarching point that any 1:1 comparison is pointless anyway because actual wars aren't about that and the US/Western lead over them in enabling capabilities like C2, ISR, EW, Mobility, and training* is still pretty significant. * Sequestration notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And of course there's the overarching point that any 1:1 comparison is pointless anyway because actual wars aren't about that and the US/Western lead over them in enabling capabilities like C2, ISR, EW, Mobility, and training* is still pretty significant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I'm kinda amaze at everyone in this thread having a hard-on for gripen when it's the subject of national scorn over here at least once every year. I don't think most of the people who complain about the Gripen in this country understand what they're talking about at all. It's actually a really good aircraft that fits our needs perfectly and after they worked out the problems in the prototype series its development has been managed amazingly well, unlike most of FMV's other procurement programs. The Gripen C/D series was actually under budget and the E/F looks like it's gonna be on time and on budget too. With hindsight the decision to develop it back in the 80's was kinda iffy, but now that we have it, it'd be madness to let it go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 10:27
|
|
TheFluff posted:I don't think most of the people who complain about the Gripen in this country understand what they're talking about at all. It's actually a really good aircraft that fits our needs perfectly and after they worked out the problems in the prototype series its development has been managed amazingly well, unlike most of FMV's other procurement programs. The Gripen C/D series was actually under budget and the E/F looks like it's gonna be on time and on budget too. With hindsight the decision to develop it back in the 80's was kinda iffy, but now that we have it, it'd be madness to let it go. I'm actually kind of astonished more people haven't bought it, considering what a good deal it is and how relatively politically neutral its country of manufacture is compared to the US or Russia. The Dutch know what's up though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm actually kind of astonished more people haven't bought it, considering what a good deal it is and how relatively politically neutral its country of manufacture is compared to the US or Russia. The Dutch know what's up though. Not enough bribe money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Not enough bribe money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Not enough bribe money. drat you Uppdrag Granskning. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:04
|
|