Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 198

Thread: Future of Belgian Air Component

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Is that official?
    No. What is official is that there will be engine evolutions for F4. What is known is that present air intakes limit engine power to 8.2/8.3 T (limit of air flow). It is also known that a 9T derivative of M88 was tested several years ago. That a higher thrust would be a nice goodie for STOBAR carrier operations. t is known that very hight temp derivative of M88 hot core is being tested (albeit for FCAS atm).
    All in all , it is probable, but definitely not sure, that there will be a 8+T version for F4. Thats what is said in the article.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    Dumbest post in this thread so far. By a long shot.
    hey I'm just saying what the future will look like, but I guess some people can't handle the simple facts

    buy any "cutting edge" technology today and introduce it 10 years from now, see how it holds up
    because the next 10 years in technological development are going to be equal to about the 40 last years in development
    meaning the F-35 is going to need a crapload of upgrades to remain relevant, or have to compete with aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    I saw a Belgian poster suggesting that Belgium should go for a mix of SH and Growlers, arguing that operating costs of F-35 is still a bit of an unknown, and that Europe will in any case have a significant number of F-35 whereas Europe has very limited stand-off EWS capabilities.

    He actually does have a good point... Even tiny Australia has infinitely larger numbers of Growlers than Europe (which currently has 0). And for Europe (or NATO) whether Belgium adds 34 F-35 or not does not really make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

    Both France and Sweden probably has the know-how to develop a Growler version of either Rafale or Gripen but it has not yet happened.
    Specialization isnt the way to go IMO. I think specialized missions like EW should be handled by NATO. Perhaps a multinational EA-18G squadron similar in concept to the NATO-operated AWACS, Global Hawk (AGS) and C-17 (SAC) fleets. A mixed Super Hornet/Growler fleet would be very expensive to acquire, probably even more than a F-35-only fleet. I dont know the flyaway cost of a EA-18G but i will hazard a guess that it is not that far away from a F-35. And then you have to buy the ALQ-99 pods and AARGM missiles who arent cheap too... It just not worth it especially since we have no experience in EW. It would be a steep learning curve for us.

    As for the Super Hornet, it represents the past and present of military aviation, not its future. Nice avionics but on an ageing, draggy, POS airframe. And dont get me started on those silly canted out pylons who are pretty much aerodynamical aberrations. I am embarrased for Boeing that they even came up with a "solution" like this.
    Last edited by LoneWolf; 4th April 2017 at 18:11.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    No. What is official is that there will be engine evolutions for F4. What is known is that present air intakes limit engine power to 8.2/8.3 T (limit of air flow). It is also known that a 9T derivative of M88 was tested several years ago. That a higher thrust would be a nice goodie for STOBAR carrier operations. t is known that very hight temp derivative of M88 hot core is being tested (albeit for FCAS atm).
    All in all , it is probable, but definitely not sure, that there will be a 8+T version for F4. Thats what is said in the article.
    Thanks

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanem View Post
    meaning the F-35 is going to need a crapload of upgrades to remain relevant, or have to compete with aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance
    Name one of those "aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance" please?

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanem View Post
    hey I'm just saying what the future will look like, but I guess some people can't handle the simple facts

    buy any "cutting edge" technology today and introduce it 10 years from now, see how it holds up
    because the next 10 years in technological development are going to be equal to about the 40 last years in development
    meaning the F-35 is going to need a crapload of upgrades to remain relevant, or have to compete with aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance
    Yeah funny how no other air forces has come up with the same conclusions as yours. All first-rate air forces around the world still believe manned fighters will be around for a while. Thats why there is the F-35, PAK FA, J-20, J-31, Korean KF-X, Indian AMCA, Japanese X-2, Turkish TFX, etc.

    Dont think you are smarter than the leadership of dozens of air forces. That would be very pretentious of you.
    Last edited by LoneWolf; 4th April 2017 at 17:29.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    If your measuring stick is the F-35 then of course the SH falls short.

    If you compare the SH to the Eurocanards, in terms of RCS reductions my guess is it's the same ballpark. The ASH suggested by Boeing also demonstrates a significant growth potential (which of course pales in comparison to the growth potential of the F-35).

    Cost wise it seems to be cheaper than both Rafale and Typhoon... I am not sure how it compares to F-35, Boeing seems to be challenging the conclusions made in Denmark.

    I saw a Belgian poster suggesting that Belgium should go for a mix of SH and Growlers, arguing that operating costs of F-35 is still a bit of an unknown, and that Europe will in any case have a significant number of F-35 whereas Europe has very limited stand-off EWS capabilities.

    He actually does have a good point... Even tiny Australia has infinitely larger numbers of Growlers than Europe (which currently has 0). And for Europe (or NATO) whether Belgium adds 34 F-35 or not does not really make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

    Both France and Sweden probably has the know-how to develop a Growler version of either Rafale or Gripen but it has not yet happened.
    I am going to make a prediction, for the foreseable future (lets say a decade) every European Country West of Ukraine, that is going to acquire new combat jets are going to a) order "Dave", b) order a variation of Gripen and c) order some Vipers from AMARC, the main KPP being "size of budget". The two exceptions will be France with the Rafale F4 and maybe Germany with the Tornado ECR replacement wich could go "Dave", upgrade sensors/weapons for their Phoons, rebuild the Tornados and use them for the next fifteen/twenty years, a mix of the two/three options, or nothing at all.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Limousin France
    Posts
    951
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    I am going to make a prediction, for the foreseable future (lets say a decade) every European Country West of Ukraine, that is going to acquire new combat jets are going to a) order "Dave", b) order a variation of Gripen and c) order some Vipers from AMARC, the main KPP being "size of budget". The two exceptions will be France with the Rafale F4 and maybe Germany with the Tornado ECR replacement wich could go "Dave", upgrade sensors/weapons for their Phoons, rebuild the Tornados and use them for the next fifteen/twenty years, a mix of the two/three options, or nothing at all.
    I think you are bang on here. What will be interesting is how Stealth holds up over the next 10 to 20 years we already know that the latest ground radars and AEW can see aircraft like F-35 better than 10 years ago. For the UK this is less of issue as what F-35 offers is a modern capable carrier strike wing first and for most and stealth second. I hope what the German issue offers is a opportunity for a Typhoon replacement for the UK as well

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    Yeah funny how no other air forces has come up with the same conclusions as yours. All first-rate air forces around the world still believe manned fighters will be around for a while. Thats why there is the F-35, PAK FA, J-20, J-31, Korean KF-X, Indian AMCA, Japanese X-2, Turkish TFX, etc.
    Dont think you are smarter than the leadership of dozens of air forces. That would be very pretentious of you.
    lol
    sorry when you bring up air force leadership in relationship to Belgium I always think of these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_scandal
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

    you know, Air Force leadership taking bribes that affect their choices
    not to mention that drones are probably the most hated technology ever for pilots, the people who run most air forces. never heard of a factory worker telling his boss to buy more machines that can replace him

    and military leadership has a very strong tradition of ignoring technological advances, and the strategic and tactical changes these brought to the battlefield
    the machine gun in WW1, Blitzkrieg in WW2, ATGMs in the Israeli conflicts, the USFA not caring much for these "Predator" toys until the CIA started using them...
    hell the little drones ISIS is using to bomb units in Iraq and Syria while $100 million F-22 who are supposed to provide air total superiority can't do a thing

    so yes I'm pretty sure air force leadership around the world are wrong on this one, for the simple reason that they don't want to be right
    the fact that none of them are even discussing it says it all

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,108
    Despite being one of the sensible options costwise, i doubt F-18 will be even offered to Belgium. Belgic asked for a "package" to other governments, do you think USA will offer it?

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Despite being one of the sensible options costwise, i doubt F-18 will be even offered to Belgium. Belgic asked for a "package" to other governments, do you think USA will offer it?
    RFPs have been issued to the French Direction Générale de l'Armement (DGA) for the Dassault Rafale; the Swedish Defence Material Administration (FMV) for the Saab Gripen E; the Joint Program Office (JPO) for the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF); the UK Ministry of Defence for the Eurofighter Typhoon; and to the US Navy Program Manager Air (PMA) 265 for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
    http://www.janes.com/article/68838/b...acement-effort

    Similar to what Denmark did I believe.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanem View Post
    lol
    sorry when you bring up air force leadership in relationship to Belgium I always think of these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_scandal
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

    you know, Air Force leadership taking bribes that affect their choices
    not to mention that drones are probably the most hated technology ever for pilots, the people who run most air forces. never heard of a factory worker telling his boss to buy more machines that can replace him
    Those were two bribery cases involving politicians, not really air force leadership, so i fail to see how this is relevant but whatever. Its not like i expected an intelligent answer from you. My expectations were low.

    and military leadership has a very strong tradition of ignoring technological advances, and the strategic and tactical changes these brought to the battlefield
    the machine gun in WW1, Blitzkrieg in WW2, ATGMs in the Israeli conflicts, the USFA not caring much for these "Predator" toys until the CIA started using them...
    hell the little drones ISIS is using to bomb units in Iraq and Syria while $100 million F-22 who are supposed to provide air total superiority can't do a thing
    *skipping unintelligible, incoherent ramblings*

    so yes I'm pretty sure air force leadership around the world are wrong on this one, for the simple reason that they don't want to be right
    the fact that none of them are even discussing it says it all
    Well, if that isnt the height of arrogance i dont know what this is. The height of stupidity, perhaps?

    Btw, you still havent answered Sintra's post:
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra
    Name one of those "aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance" please?
    Please, do tell us. We are all ears.

    And if the near future belongs to unmanned fighters, which aircraft should Belgium buy? Because i am not aware of any UCAVs with fighter capabilities being available on the market right now.
    Last edited by LoneWolf; 7th April 2017 at 16:55.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    The purchase of fighter a/c is often quite political -- some countries do not have fighters at all, in particular the Baltic countries (in spite of having Russia as close neighbor).

    Belgium is a NATO member having only friendlies as neighbors. Thus in theory Belgium could decide to leave the QRA duty to other countries and instead spend their defence money on other aspects, be it UCAVs, submarines, special forces, or whatnot.

    Or they can decide (as they have done) to fly fighters.

    Even then the question remains; what kind of fighters? fighters to do QRA only, or fighters that can survive in high-threat environments? This is a political question, due to Belgium's NATO membership.

    The answer is given in the RFP: Belgium wants (and requests) a modern, very potent multirole fighter jet that can successfully complete a whole range of missions, including in quite high-threat environments.

    This, together with a strong wish to be compatible with other NATO forces point in one direction: The F-35.

    Anyway as stated before: I hope the Belgians will present high-level summaries like the Danes did; perhaps someone will be surprised when they see the Rafale results

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    The purchase of fighter a/c is often quite political -- some countries do not have fighters at all, in particular the Baltic countries (in spite of having Russia as close neighbor).

    Belgium is a NATO member having only friendlies as neighbors. Thus in theory Belgium could decide to leave the QRA duty to other countries and instead spend their defence money on other aspects, be it UCAVs, submarines, special forces, or whatnot.

    Or they can decide (as they have done) to fly fighters.

    Even then the question remains; what kind of fighters? fighters to do QRA only, or fighters that can survive in high-threat environments? This is a political question, due to Belgium's NATO membership.

    The answer is given in the RFP: Belgium wants (and requests) a modern, very potent multirole fighter jet that can successfully complete a whole range of missions, including in quite high-threat environments.

    This, together with a strong wish to be compatible with other NATO forces point in one direction: The F-35.

    Anyway as stated before: I hope the Belgians will present high-level summaries like the Danes did; perhaps someone will be surprised when they see the Rafale results
    Maybe. I hope either!!!

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    "After studying the question, we regret that we see no possibility to compete with the extremely capable and cost-effective F / A-18 Super Hornet on a truly level playing field," says Boeing.
    The four remaining candidates to succeed the F-16s, the F-35 Lightning II Lockheed Martin, the Rafale F3R the French Dassault, the JAS 39E Gripen of the Swedish Saab and Eurofighter Typhoon Airbus.
    Google translated from: http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/bo...eeld-b8cca3fb/

    In a way not very surprising, given the requirements.

    It will be very interesting to see if any of the others also pull out.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    The purchase of fighter a/c is often quite political -- some countries do not have fighters at all, in particular the Baltic countries (in spite of having Russia as close neighbor).

    Belgium is a NATO member having only friendlies as neighbors. Thus in theory Belgium could decide to leave the QRA duty to other countries and instead spend their defence money on other aspects, be it UCAVs, submarines, special forces, or whatnot.

    Or they can decide (as they have done) to fly fighters.

    Even then the question remains; what kind of fighters? fighters to do QRA only, or fighters that can survive in high-threat environments? This is a political question, due to Belgium's NATO membership.

    The answer is given in the RFP: Belgium wants (and requests) a modern, very potent multirole fighter jet that can successfully complete a whole range of missions, including in quite high-threat environments.

    This, together with a strong wish to be compatible with other NATO forces point in one direction: The F-35.

    Anyway as stated before: I hope the Belgians will present high-level summaries like the Danes did; perhaps someone will be surprised when they see the Rafale results
    Except that a 3F F-35 wouldn't be able to perform the given scenarios due to lack of weapons . Not true for 4F i think. There is another problem with timetable. Block III F-18 is maybe not advanced enough atm. Fianlly, the very structure of the RFpG is to seek for a deep collaboration with vendor state. i would be surprised to see USA propose two different aircrafts (different to Korea, here Both F-18 and F-35 would need to be proposed by USA agencies, not companies).
    Last edited by halloweene; 19th April 2017 at 21:08.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,141
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Except that a 3F F-35 wouldn't be able to perform the given scenarios due to lack of weapons . Not true for 4F i think. There is another problem with timetable. Block III F-18 is maybe not advanced enough atm. Fianlly, the very structure of the RFpG is to seek for a deep collaboration with vendor state. i would be surprised to see USA propose two different aircrafts (different to Korea, here Both F-18 and F-35 would need to be proposed by USA agencies, not companies).
    I think Belgium can probably accept that not all scenarios can be fully executed from day 1 of the introduction. The current version of the F-35 is already very capabable and it will be much better than today by the time of the introduction.

    As for the latter point; I don't think this is really an issue, I think the US could have offered two alternatives -- if this had been an issue for sure Boeing (who is, just like LM, well connected in Washington) would have made a lot of noise.

    Rather this just reflects that Boeing has looked at the RFP and concluded that this was written with the F-35 in mind.... I think the others will reach the same conclusion. Even I, with my limited (layman) knowledge concluded quite rapidly that this RFP was written with the F-35 in mind.

    Somebody may object and say that this RFP was written solely to reflect the needs of the customer for the next 40 years or so. However think for a second about an "alternate reality" in which the US did not develop the F-35 but rather developed a "super F-16" for the USAF and kept on buying the SH for the navy; in such a situation me thinks this RFP would have looked quite different.... however the F-35 does exist, and therefore one can argue that it makes a lot of sense to take advantage of that fact...

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Google translated from: http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/bo...eeld-b8cca3fb/

    In a way not very surprising, given the requirements.

    It will be very interesting to see if any of the others also pull out.
    Well, good riddance Boeing.

    Glad that the least desirable option is out of the picture. One down, three more to go.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,108
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    Well, good riddance Boeing.

    Glad that the least desirable option is out of the picture. One down, three more to go.
    Anw B-61 is not to be adapted to USN planes no? (same for europeans planes for instance).

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Except that a 3F F-35 wouldn't be able to perform the given scenarios due to lack of weapons . Not true for 4F i think. There is another problem with timetable. Block III F-18 is maybe not advanced enough atm. Fianlly, the very structure of the RFpG is to seek for a deep collaboration with vendor state. i would be surprised to see USA propose two different aircrafts (different to Korea, here Both F-18 and F-35 would need to be proposed by USA agencies, not companies).
    3F would be ported to operational aircraft later this year. If they are looking at the 2020's and 30s they'd be interested in block 4.1-4.4 and perhaps even beyond. Plenty of weapons focused upgrades including expanded carriage, newer weapons and what not.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 20th April 2017 at 13:20.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    Those were two bribery cases involving politicians, not really air force leadership, so i fail to see how this is relevant but whatever. Its not like i expected an intelligent answer from you. My expectations were low.
    well I can't say I'm surprised you'd believe there is no corruption in the military. some people are that naive
    corruption at such levels is probably well hidden

    a good example is the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, where it's documented that Army leadership manipulated testing to essentially send troops into battle in a death trap
    of course the generals had a million excuses on why and what, but then they're not the ones getting into these vehicles
    they just need to sell them to Congress so they can get that "consultant" position after they go on pension

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    Name one of those "aircraft that cost a fraction of its price for equal performance" please?

    And if the near future belongs to unmanned fighters, which aircraft should Belgium buy? Because i am not aware of any UCAVs with fighter capabilities being available on the market right now.
    UCAVs are 99% about computer intelligence and computing power

    that technology has been around for over a decade (X-45 proved it's possible back in 2005, and got shut down right after), and is already used in USAF black projects like the RQ-170 and whatever replaced the F-117 and B-2
    but isn't offered on the market because
    a) pilots want to fly
    b) why buy an F-35 if a UCAV can do the same mission better at a fraction of the price
    c) the US is edgy about selling even the MQ-1 to its closest allies, never mind a cheap stealth aircraft with long range that could probably get past an F-22

    there aren't any quantum supercomputers on the market today either, but there will be in a few years
    in the same way in the next few years even more powerful computers running advanced software and mission programs will come online
    at that point this technology will be basically off the shelf, and allow for cheap and effective new UCAVs to be designed, or just older planes to be converted into UCAVs (as is already done with the QF-16)

    at which point you can buy an expensive unproven F-35 or
    - a $15 million stealth UCAV that is essentially a reusable cruise missile (that was the Boeing estimate from 2005, Kratos has now been funded to develop a $3 million design)
    - just upgrade your 40 year old F-16 (QF-16 conversion is priced at $1.5 million, probably be something like that a few million more for sensors and advanced computers) into an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers... than an F-35 without a pilot on board meaning it can run rings around an F-35 all day long

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanem View Post

    at which point you can buy an expensive unproven F-35 or
    - a $15 million stealth UCAV that is essentially a reusable cruise missile (that was the Boeing estimate from 2005, Kratos has now been funded to develop a $3 million design)
    - just upgrade your 40 year old F-16 (QF-16 conversion is priced at $1.5 million, probably be something like that a few million more for sensors and advanced computers) into an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers... than an F-35 without a pilot on board meaning it can run rings around an F-35 all day long
    There´s no program to turn "40 year old F-16" into "an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers" wich "it can run rings around an F-35 all day long".

    That doesnt exist
    There´s no such program
    And the Belgian Air Force cant choose something that doesnt exist.

    Believing in something that there´s no proof of existance is called "Religious Belief" and no Air Force is going to include Religion in its KPP´s.

    There´s an interesting read for you, Duncan Sandys and the 1957 Defence White Paper (Great Britain).
    Last edited by Sintra; 20th April 2017 at 17:32.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Believing in something that there´s no proof of existance is called "Religious Belief" and no Air Force is going to include Religion in its KPP´s.
    Good luck believing something that you have proofs of. The word for that is knowing.

    Just saying.

    That said planning your airforce is an act of belief since you have to wonder what kind of threats you will face in 20 or 30 years. And you have to plan for it right now.

    Nic
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 20th April 2017 at 17:51.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Good luck believing something that you have proofs of. The word for that is knowing.

    Just saying.

    That said planning your airforce is an act of belief since you have to wonder what kind of threats you will face in 20 or 30 years. And you have to plan for it right now.

    Nic
    Eh?
    You read the Belgian RFP and its scenarios? Can you point one single known "Cheap Stealth UCAV" wich will be available in the Belgian Air Force timeframe to replace the Viper who could run those scenarios?
    Its what we are discussing here.
    Last edited by Sintra; 20th April 2017 at 18:02.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Eh?

    Have you read the Belgian RFP and its scenarios? Can you point one single known "Cheap Stealth UCAV" wich will be available in the Belgian Air Force timeframe to replace the Viper who could run those scenarios?
    Its what we are discussing here...
    Wait what?

    Nic

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Wait what?

    Nic
    Sanem is convinced that a "cheap stealth UCAV" or a "40 year old F-16" can be turned into an UCAV that will be "an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers" wich "it can run rings around an F-35 all day long", that will out everything any of the severall contenders for the Belgian RFP, and all this can be made available in the Belgian Airforce timeframe to replace the Viper...

    Severall of us have been saying to him for quite some time "that doesnt exist".

    Cheers

  27. #147
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Sanem is convinced that a "cheap stealth UCAV" or a "40 year old F-16" can be turned into "an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers" wich "it can run rings around an F-35 all day long", that will out everything any of the severall contenders for the Belgian RFP, can be made available in the Belgian Airforce timeframe to replace the Viper...

    Severall of us have been saying to him for quite some time "that doesnt exist".

    Cheers
    I don't give a damn, I was actually replying to what I quoted. (But I'm a strange chap, I know).

    Cheers,

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    I don't give a damn, I was actually replying to what I quoted. (But I'm a strange chap, I know).

    Cheers,
    Ok

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanem View Post
    well I can't say I'm surprised you'd believe there is no corruption in the military. some people are that naive
    corruption at such levels is probably well hidden

    a good example is the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, where it's documented that Army leadership manipulated testing to essentially send troops into battle in a death trap
    of course the generals had a million excuses on why and what, but then they're not the ones getting into these vehicles
    they just need to sell them to Congress so they can get that "consultant" position after they go on pension
    I never said that there is no corruption in the military (its probably common in 3rd World countries) just that your two examples were poor. Boo hoo there are occasional cases of corruption in some, mostly non-Western, militaries therefore it must mean that all first-rate air arms around the world are corrupt and wrong about pursuing manned fighters. Sanem's "logic" at work. And calling me "naive" is a bit rich when you are the one thinking AI and drone technology has become so mature that it will render 5th gen manned fighters useless within a decade.

    Btw, i wouldnt call the Bradley a "death trap". It seems it turned out to be a pretty succesful IFV and the US Army has no plans to replace it in the near to mid-term future. Pretty poor example if thats the best case of "corruption" you can come with.


    UCAVs are 99% about computer intelligence and computing power

    that technology has been around for over a decade (X-45 proved it's possible back in 2005, and got shut down right after), and is already used in USAF black projects like the RQ-170 and whatever replaced the F-117 and B-2
    but isn't offered on the market because
    a) pilots want to fly
    b) why buy an F-35 if a UCAV can do the same mission better at a fraction of the price
    c) the US is edgy about selling even the MQ-1 to its closest allies, never mind a cheap stealth aircraft with long range that could probably get past an F-22

    there aren't any quantum supercomputers on the market today either, but there will be in a few years
    in the same way in the next few years even more powerful computers running advanced software and mission programs will come online
    at that point this technology will be basically off the shelf, and allow for cheap and effective new UCAVs to be designed, or just older planes to be converted into UCAVs (as is already done with the QF-16)

    at which point you can buy an expensive unproven F-35 or
    - a $15 million stealth UCAV that is essentially a reusable cruise missile (that was the Boeing estimate from 2005, Kratos has now been funded to develop a $3 million design)
    - just upgrade your 40 year old F-16 (QF-16 conversion is priced at $1.5 million, probably be something like that a few million more for sensors and advanced computers) into an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers... than an F-35 without a pilot on board meaning it can run rings around an F-35 all day long
    Still waiting for you to name me a UCAV, with fighter capabilities and with equal or superior performances to our F-16s, being available on the market right now. Not a concept or a fancy idea of yours but a real program. But you cant name one of course since there arent any. Hard to take you seriously when all your ideas seem to be based more on wishful thinking, erroneous informations and unsupported assertions rather than on cold hard facts.

    In other words, you have no credibility. Perhaps think twice next time before making bombastic claims with not much to back them up...
    Last edited by LoneWolf; 20th April 2017 at 23:21.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    There´s no program to turn "40 year old F-16" into "an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers" wich "it can run rings around an F-35 all day long".
    That doesnt exist
    There´s no such program
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Sanem is convinced that a "cheap stealth UCAV" or a "40 year old F-16" can be turned into an UCAV that will be "an aircraft that has more advanced radar, optical sensors, computers" wich "it can run rings around an F-35 all day long", that will out everything any of the severall contenders for the Belgian RFP, and all this can be made available in the Belgian Airforce timeframe to replace the Viper...
    a) you can't say such a program doesn't exist, unless you have access to top secret programs. even if anyone on this forum did have such information, to share or even hint at such information would lead to his or her going to jail

    and before you disagree with me on this point, how many here knew about the F-117, B-2, RQ-170... before they were revealed? how many have detailed information on the latest frontline aircraft? the newest 5th generation might already be able to operate as UCAVs, but that information would be kept secret and for good reason

    b) companies like Boeing, NG, Airbus... have been begging for years for funding to develop advanced cutting edge UCAVs, with little success as Europe doesn't have the money or the political unity, and the Pentagon is killing everything that poses a threat to the F-35 (such as J-UCAS and the X-47b)

    Boeing went as far as to develop the Phantom Ray by itself, and GA is in the process of selling the Predator C to India of all countries, meaning that in a matter of years India will have the biggest fleet of stealthy UCAVs in the world

    c) the technology is already here, the Global Hawk has been executing missions without a human at the controls for almost 20 years, Boeing proved autonomous mission capability back in 2005. the XQ-222 is the first overt program to harness this technology, at only $3 million per aircraft it'll be able to fulfill a huge number of missions that would normally cost an aircraft worth 10 folds

    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    And the Belgian Air Force cant choose something that doesnt exist.
    a decade or two ago a Belgian government building was lined with internet cable. drilling the holes and laying the cables cost a small fortune. a year or so later the whole system was abandoned and replaced by wireless internet at a fraction of the

    I'm just telling you from personal experience that the Belgian government, like so many others, is grossly incompetent, often for reason of bad intention (corruption, political reasons, reputation, ambition...)

    even if the its military was smart enough to be aware of what's coming just a few years from now they'll not want to see, they want to choose the F-35 because they'll personally gain the most out of it

    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Eh?
    You read the Belgian RFP and its scenarios? Can you point one single known "Cheap Stealth UCAV" wich will be available in the Belgian Air Force timeframe to replace the Viper who could run those scenarios?
    Its what we are discussing here.
    the scenario's drawn up by Belgium and its allies in 1939 also didn't foresee a German invasion through the Ardennes
    kind of obvious in hindsight but hey, nobody likes to be told he's incompetent

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    I never said that there is no corruption in the military (its probably common in 3rd World countries) just that your two examples were poor. Boo hoo there are occasional cases of corruption in some, mostly non-Western, militaries therefore it must mean that all first-rate air arms around the world are corrupt and wrong about pursuing manned fighters.
    lol a German media crew carrying hidden camera's went to a European parliament member pretending to be a lobbyist. the MP told them the price for his vote. the story was largely suppressed

    I can assure you companies bribe generals in the West, at the highest levels. except why hand traceable and illegal envelopes when you can just give them 100% legal "consulting" positions

    and if you want an example of incompetence by military leadership there's the F-22 story where its pilots came forward, risking their careers in an attempt to get the USAF to do something about the pilots losing their lives on the aircraft

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    And calling me "naive" is a bit rich when you are the one thinking AI and drone technology has become so mature that it will render 5th gen manned fighters useless within a decade.
    well the F-35's technology is a generation ahead of the F-22
    I'd say it's a bit naive to believe the F-35 will not be outdated by 2027
    that's like saying the Nokia 3310 is better than an iPhone 4. sure the Nokia has better battery, is more durable, but the internet connection, camera and apps make it a non competition

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneWolf View Post
    Still waiting for you to name me a UCAV, with fighter capabilities and with equal or superior performances to our F-16s, being available on the market right now.
    there will be by the time the F-35 becomes operational for the Belgian Air Force, that's how technology works
    and most likely it will just be an upgrade for those same Belgian F-16s
    so yeah I think it would be nice if my tax money wasn't wasted on outdated technology to pay corrupt and incompetent people for something we don't really need, if we'll be able to buy a better and cheaper solution shortly after ordering this cr*p

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES