Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
bring_it_on
bring_it_on
2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
Last Activity: 18th September 2018, 01:36
Joined: 12th June 2004
Location: Columbia, MD
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • bring_it_on
    replied to 2018 F-35 News and Discussion
    deleted..
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th September 2018, 01:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • There are two KPPs for this aircraft, the first having to do with the way it integrates on the carrier and the second specifying the amount of fuel it needs to offload at a distance. Outside of these KPPs each OEM was free to design to what it felt best and could leave as much growth as it felt best...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 4th September 2018, 11:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • bring_it_on
    replied to 2018 F-35 News and Discussion
    For sure. For some International users, a certain capability will be more attractive and it may be better for them to wait for it before they buy in larger quantities. It also depends on the cost of the capability they really value. For a user X, that may only value, say the SDB-II, the cost isn't very...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 3rd September 2018, 15:21.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pg. 39 - http://www.barringer1.com/pdf/ASME-Dec-2013.pdf

    BTW Hallow - ADVENT is NOT an ENGINE.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • bring_it_on
    replied to 2018 F-35 News and Discussion
    There is no one "FOC standard". Each service has its own internal criteria for declaring Full Operational Capability. And indeed, one service can say that it absolutely needs SDB-II, for example, before declaring FOC and they can wait for that to show up to do so. That is not for the program...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 3rd September 2018, 15:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • At the highest classification level the norm is to require US citizenship to be part of these projects unless of course the OEM can demonstrate absolute need. You (engineering working on such a project) are then personally liable for divulging thigs that are protected even if it is to a parent entity...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Mobility of knowlege is indirectly protected by making individuals liable for their conduct if they have been involved with sensitive or classified US programs. If an ADVENT team member from the RR NA team goes to work in the UK on an adaptive engine program, he will surely come under scruitiny too see he is not sharing technology...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I don't think I was clear enough. I was refering to how the process works. If you are RR USA, and apply for a sensitive USDOD S&T or R&D program you are doing so as a US entitity. There are barriers to who you put up to conduct the research, who owns the research, and individuals who work on these programs are individually...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 30th August 2018, 14:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • Of course no one ever mentioned that. However, some of it is exclusively on account of these OEMs buying into existing order books and S&T/R&D pipeline. BAE ES for example bought into Lockheed's ES division which had pretty much secured a monopoly on 5th generation EW work for the forceable future. Those S&T facilities,...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • XB-70, there would always be barriers to that as well codified into actual law and policy (i.e. flow of not just the technology but knowhow as well). The reason British and other European OEMs are able to buy strategic businesses in the US (think of RR acquiring Alison, BAE (E) acquiring Lockheed's...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • With the F-35 coming in, SLEP'ing F-16's isn't totally going away. They were simply planing to not do it in the amount, and to the extent that they would have to had the F-35s not been there. Having said that, they have scaled back considerably and I believe given the current F-35 ramp rate (i.e. F-35A delivery rate for the USAF) the will still have to spend the money to go out and SLEP F-16's, just to keep up with the squadron strenght that they want. At this moment, in order to meet their ...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 30th August 2018, 12:09.

    Leave a comment:


  • Not sure they could use any of that work since the USDOD contract would firewall them from using it abroad unless specific permissions were granted (unless of course this was done under an international cooperation arrangement). This was US DOD investment in a highly sought after and sensitive technology...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 29th August 2018, 01:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • No, the Concurrency bill estimate includes ALL concurrency, i.e. all the cost to incorporate engineering changes for discoveries from the very first aircraft till the very last US aircraft that needs it. It does not matter whether that includes aircraft already delivered or those currently in the production pipeline. As spud mentions,...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 29th August 2018, 00:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • It is a widely used term in US defense procurement and policy. In this application, it simply means the cost of retrofitting already produced aircraft with engineering changes that have been designed based on discoveries during developmental testing. This is a standard practice in US DOD acquisition as long as Low Rate Initial Production is kept...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 28th August 2018, 02:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • No not really in terms of any significant amount. If you look at the retiring of the current "Unknown" it went down from an estimated $150 million (total) from the previous report to $30 Million in the current report. That $30 Million is a really small amount and likely exists because things can come up even after executing one of the most comprehensive Flight...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 26th August 2018, 21:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • bring_it_on
    replied to USAF not F-35 thread
    The GAO (not raytheon) shared what appears to be the first glimpse of Raytheon's 3D Long range radar (three dealer) that they are currently executing the EMD on. A prototype radar has been with them for internal testing and service demonstrations for a number of years but they have never shared a picture...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Concurrency cost includes the cost to retrofit aircraft with corrections to the changes that were required based on discoveries during the testing process. For a lot of these costs, the government (and partners) have a workshare agreement with the contractor and some of these costs are shared, while some are exclusively the burden of the contractor after a certain period. What your quoted part...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 26th August 2018, 14:56.

    Leave a comment:


  • I would also find it strange that they would overlook partners and go to an FMS customer without first at least giving partner nation industry the chance to compete. This could just be Israeli industry leaking stuff to the media and others elsewhere could also be engaged in a discussion regarding the...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • .....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

 

Working...
X