tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post8235624842515006047..comments2023-04-01T10:38:24.993+01:00Comments on Grand Logistics: Why Catapults Are CheaperUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post-87678905620669490582016-08-09T07:43:45.051+01:002016-08-09T07:43:45.051+01:00"imagine the humiliation of having a rafale t..."imagine the humiliation of having a rafale taking off from a british carrier because the planes the british ordered are going to be very late into service."<br />=> The humiliation of using F-35 is much greater because Harrier III was canceled to favout it after huge bribes to btrit politicians. Rafale humiliated F-22, Typhoon, F-16, F-18E/F, Grippen, Su-30 etc etc etc during evaluations or drills. F-35 is the biggest scam ever and we'll have a good laugh when canadians will compare it to eurocanards. I bet it will perform at the level of the Grippen which ever ended last in the tests. Thanks to Dassault, we went out of the Messerschmitt TFK-90, errr, I meant EF-2000 Typhoon program and will have a good laugh about brit aircraft-carriers without aircrafts or with non fully working aircrafts... Anyway, thanks to Brexit, the US trojan horse who undermined E.U. is exiting. EU doesn't need an US poodle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post-69216827650715544712012-07-22T19:04:42.568+01:002012-07-22T19:04:42.568+01:00thats exactly the point. imagine the humiliation o...thats exactly the point. imagine the humiliation of having a rafale taking off from a british carrier because the planes the british ordered are going to be very late into service. <br /><br />wasted billions is nothing compared to national pride and as for capability - as long as we tell those plucky sailors they are having the best equipment, how will they ever know any better?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12614098278678483268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post-2547216874366717482011-05-01T05:26:29.914+01:002011-05-01T05:26:29.914+01:00During the selection process for CVF, BAE submitte...During the selection process for CVF, BAE submitted an interesting version, Hybrid carrier:<br /><br />"According to Mark Kane, managing director of BAE Systems' CVF team, its 'STOVL hybrid' design concept _ an unsolicited additional submission to the DPA _ would be primarily configured to operate the STOVL version of JSF, but would also incorporate an angled deck, a single waist catapult and arrestor gear to enable the operation of the E-2C AEW&C aircraft and other CTOL types as appropriate."<br /><br />This idea was first introduced 2002, but it seems more relevant now than ever.<br /><br />Let's go off on a deep end and propose canceling any JSF purchase. Instead, invest everything into Naval Typhoon.<br /><br />Instead of Tranche 3b, collaborate with India to build Naval Typhoon. This will allow production of 1 Typhoon, that can serve both the navy and airforce of India and UK.<br /><br />And if they go with Hybrid carrier, it will still permit cross deck operation with US and French Navy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post-53706718882100314442010-09-29T11:01:55.789+01:002010-09-29T11:01:55.789+01:00The USN are fully aware of the risk they are takin...The USN are fully aware of the risk they are taking. They will not be able to test EMALS in its OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT until it is onboard the CVN. They have accepted this and have undertaken 'to just make it work'.<br /><br />They are hoping to have it 'fully operational' on a warship in 2015, but, are under no illusions as to the risks involved.<br /><br />Your article stated that it would be fully tested after one year aboard the new CVN. From where they are now, even with a further few years shore testing, there is absolutely no guarantee it will even be fully operational after a year at sea.<br /><br />I must apologise for the comment about the dollar/pound conversion. Poor mental arithmetic on my part. The difference between the two purchases is indeed roughly as you state.<br /><br />It is interesting that you dont go further to state that the cost difference is less than 2% between the two or that the upfront costs of the CATOBAR gear are significantly higher than that difference though. So buying the cats and arrestors, not even looking at the costs of operating and maintaining them for 50 years, wipes out that 2% difference in multiples.<br /><br />You did indeed say the upfront costs would be greater. Then immediately offset them behind a £4.7bn operational cost differential even you cant begin to explain!. A poor attempt at spin.<br /><br />You ignore utterly the higher costs from CATOBAR in the ship. You note the increased training overheads for deck quals, but, dont figure those in the costs for that training. You ignore, absolutely, the costs associated with dissolving the JFH structure and the standing-up of an RN-only fastjet basing and logistics capability. <br /><br />Against that the operational cost increase for F-35B might be 'increased wear and tear in the engine' and higher maintenance requirements in man hours?. A near £5bn cost differential in man hours eh?. You think that £4.7bn is a figure with any connection to reality do you?.<br /><br />One last point...before advocating the replacement of a Sentry with Hawkeye find out what the difference in capability between the two is...and I dont mean in radar range!. It may save you looking a little foolish if you repeat that anywhere else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post-24673102607796980742010-09-28T18:47:08.502+01:002010-09-28T18:47:08.502+01:00Hello Anonymous,
perhaps you should tell the Unit...Hello Anonymous,<br /><br />perhaps you should tell the United States Navy about your concerns over E.M.A.L.S. not being well proven by 2016.<br />I am sure they would be very interested to hear it as they are expecting to have it fully operational on a commissioned warship in 2015.<br />Between now and then of course,it has another five years of intensive testing.<br />As does the F35B's lift system,which is at a similar stage of development.<br /><br />If you should read the figures I gave again,you will find they have been correctly converted from dollars to pounds using the appropriate exchange rate.<br /><br />If you read the piece again you will also note that I pointed out that:<br /><br />"it is difficult to quantify potential savings without knowing details of operating costs."<br /><br />Perhaps you missed that with your poor and biased piece of reading.<br /><br />As for the upfront cost being greater,well done,you read that bit correctly,that is exactly what I stated in the post.<br /><br />However,the potential savings in costs of support aircraft are huge in comparison with the additional initial outlay.<br /><br /><br /> GrandLogistics.GrandLogisticshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05216594701400296075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post-73802272199210882552010-09-28T14:44:17.823+01:002010-09-28T14:44:17.823+01:00Well presented. Utter nonsense but well presented....Well presented. Utter nonsense but well presented. EMALS is going to be well proven after 1yr at sea on the Ford is it?. <br /><br />Your difference in acquisition fees between both aircraft types jumps from pounds to dollars and is smaller than the cost, upfront, of the CATOBAR kit and you make no mention of cat/trap cycle life limits on the C model. A key metric for a small airgroup.<br /><br />Poor and biased piece of work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4245848993516434751.post-80728218809578830922010-09-28T11:36:53.512+01:002010-09-28T11:36:53.512+01:00And what about a Rafale ?
lolAnd what about a Rafale ?<br /><br />lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com