Vervanging F-16's
Forum rules
 |
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Ik las ergens dat Amerika de productie van de F-22 relatief snel alweer wil gaan stoppen? Geldt dit dan niet voor export? De F-22 is wel een redelijke flop gebleken.
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Nou ja, alleen qua verkoopaantallen is het niet geworden wat men er van verwacht had doordat de regering gewoon minder besteld heeft dan initieel geraamd. Qua vliegprestaties lijkt het erop dat ie subliem is (alhoewel dat ook propanda kan zijn, alle berichtgeving komt tenslotte uit de USAF-koker). De productie van F-22's wordt inderdaad over niet al te lange tijd gestopt en het draaiende houden van de productieband is een van de argumenten om de Raptor te gaan exporteren. Kennelijk wil Japan hem koste wat kost hebben, want ook nadat het forse prijskaartje was neergelegd heeft men aangegeven dat ie nog steeds bovenaan de wensenlijst staat. In dat geval wordt het denk ik de duurste export fighter ooit...kiwi wrote:Ik las ergens dat Amerika de productie van de F-22 relatief snel alweer wil gaan stoppen? Geldt dit dan niet voor export? De F-22 is wel een redelijke flop gebleken.
Greetz,
Patrick
Patrick
Re: Vervanging F-16's
JSF Rival Engine Will Be More Powerful, GE/R-R Team Says
PARIS - The General Electric/Rolls-Royce fighter engine team building the F136 alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) said June 16 it would offer a significant power advantage over the rival engine.
The GE/R-R engine partnership has designed a larger core than was originally planned for the F136, meaning it could provide the JSF with a greater thrust-to-weight ratio that would translate into about 5 percent more power over current specifications, fighter engine team Senior Vice President Mark Rhodes said at the Paris Air Show.
Rhodes said the current combat rating requirement for the JSF engine was for about 43,000 pounds of thrust. The larger core means that if the customer wanted more power in the future, that growth capacity was built in and a software change would be all that was required to add thrust, Rhodes said.
"One benefit from being three years behind [competing engine company] Pratt & Whitney is that we have been able to watch how the aircraft has evolved. Therefore, we've been able to make some critical decisions about the size of the engine," Rhodes said. "That's why we increased the size of the core so you can get a greater thrust-to-weight ratio. The experience has been that you always require more thrust."
The GE/R-R fighter engine team remains in a political fight to secure its position to supply a competing engine on the JSF. The Pentagon and the Obama administration have removed F136 funds from the 2010 defense budget proposal. But team president Jean Lydon-Rogers said that a U.S. House Armed Services Committee subcommittee was moving to restore F136 funding.
The subcommittee added $603 million to the Defense Department's authorization bill, including $463 million to continue development and $140 million to buy the first four production engines, Lydon-Rogers said.
Lydon-Rogers also said that having a dual-source engine supplier could lead to a 20 percent or greater cost savings over the life of the program based on historical data from programs like the F-16, for which engine prices dropped after a competitor was introduced.
She also said that 70 percent of the F136's development funds have already been spent. A second engine will start testing in July, a third by the end of this year and by around this time next year, there will be six engines in testing. First flight will take place in late 2010 or early 2011.
"Our focus is on continued execution of all our milestones on schedule, and maybe a little ahead, while staying on budget," Lydon-Rogers said.
Defense News, Published: 16 Jun 11:45 EDT (15:45 GMT)
PARIS - The General Electric/Rolls-Royce fighter engine team building the F136 alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) said June 16 it would offer a significant power advantage over the rival engine.
The GE/R-R engine partnership has designed a larger core than was originally planned for the F136, meaning it could provide the JSF with a greater thrust-to-weight ratio that would translate into about 5 percent more power over current specifications, fighter engine team Senior Vice President Mark Rhodes said at the Paris Air Show.
Rhodes said the current combat rating requirement for the JSF engine was for about 43,000 pounds of thrust. The larger core means that if the customer wanted more power in the future, that growth capacity was built in and a software change would be all that was required to add thrust, Rhodes said.
"One benefit from being three years behind [competing engine company] Pratt & Whitney is that we have been able to watch how the aircraft has evolved. Therefore, we've been able to make some critical decisions about the size of the engine," Rhodes said. "That's why we increased the size of the core so you can get a greater thrust-to-weight ratio. The experience has been that you always require more thrust."
The GE/R-R fighter engine team remains in a political fight to secure its position to supply a competing engine on the JSF. The Pentagon and the Obama administration have removed F136 funds from the 2010 defense budget proposal. But team president Jean Lydon-Rogers said that a U.S. House Armed Services Committee subcommittee was moving to restore F136 funding.
The subcommittee added $603 million to the Defense Department's authorization bill, including $463 million to continue development and $140 million to buy the first four production engines, Lydon-Rogers said.
Lydon-Rogers also said that having a dual-source engine supplier could lead to a 20 percent or greater cost savings over the life of the program based on historical data from programs like the F-16, for which engine prices dropped after a competitor was introduced.
She also said that 70 percent of the F136's development funds have already been spent. A second engine will start testing in July, a third by the end of this year and by around this time next year, there will be six engines in testing. First flight will take place in late 2010 or early 2011.
"Our focus is on continued execution of all our milestones on schedule, and maybe a little ahead, while staying on budget," Lydon-Rogers said.
Defense News, Published: 16 Jun 11:45 EDT (15:45 GMT)
Re: Vervanging F-16's
'Markt voor 6000 JSF's'
PARIJS - De Amerikaanse generaal David Heinz, die aan het hoofd staat van het programma om het gevechtsvliegtuig JSF te gaan bouwen, verwacht dat uiteindelijk zesduizend van deze toestellen gebouwd zullen worden.
Hij zei dit woensdag tijdens de luchtvaartshow Le Bourget in Parijs. Thomas Burbage, de directeur die bij vliegtuigfabrikant Lockheed Martin gaat over het JSF-progamma, zei al contracten te hebben voor de bouw van 31 JSF's.
De JSF is een project waaraan de industrie in negen landen, waaronder Nederland, meedoet. In ons land is de JSF de gedoodverfde opvolger van de F-16 van de luchtmacht.
F-18
Het toestel wordt niet alleen gezien als een toekomstige vervanger van de F-16, maar ook van de F-18 in andere landen.
Van de 31 toestellen, waarvoor Lockheed Martin al een productiecontract heeft, gaan er twee naar partner Verenigd Koninkrijk en de meeste naar de Verenigde Staten, aldus Burbage.
Markt
Lockheed Martin verwacht ongeveer 3.100 JSF's te gaan verkopen aan de partnerlanden, zei Burbage. Generaal David Heinz voegde daaraan toe dat de markt veel groter is. Gezien het aantal toestellen dat de komende jaren vervangen dient te worden, gaat hij uit van zesduizend stuks.
Israël, Singapore, Spanje, Japan, Finland en Zuid Korea hebben hun belangstelling getoond voor de JSF, zei Heinz. Dit zijn landen die niet meedoen aan het project.
© ANP Uitgegeven: 17 juni 2009 17:17
PARIJS - De Amerikaanse generaal David Heinz, die aan het hoofd staat van het programma om het gevechtsvliegtuig JSF te gaan bouwen, verwacht dat uiteindelijk zesduizend van deze toestellen gebouwd zullen worden.
Hij zei dit woensdag tijdens de luchtvaartshow Le Bourget in Parijs. Thomas Burbage, de directeur die bij vliegtuigfabrikant Lockheed Martin gaat over het JSF-progamma, zei al contracten te hebben voor de bouw van 31 JSF's.
De JSF is een project waaraan de industrie in negen landen, waaronder Nederland, meedoet. In ons land is de JSF de gedoodverfde opvolger van de F-16 van de luchtmacht.
F-18
Het toestel wordt niet alleen gezien als een toekomstige vervanger van de F-16, maar ook van de F-18 in andere landen.
Van de 31 toestellen, waarvoor Lockheed Martin al een productiecontract heeft, gaan er twee naar partner Verenigd Koninkrijk en de meeste naar de Verenigde Staten, aldus Burbage.
Markt
Lockheed Martin verwacht ongeveer 3.100 JSF's te gaan verkopen aan de partnerlanden, zei Burbage. Generaal David Heinz voegde daaraan toe dat de markt veel groter is. Gezien het aantal toestellen dat de komende jaren vervangen dient te worden, gaat hij uit van zesduizend stuks.
Israël, Singapore, Spanje, Japan, Finland en Zuid Korea hebben hun belangstelling getoond voor de JSF, zei Heinz. Dit zijn landen die niet meedoen aan het project.
© ANP Uitgegeven: 17 juni 2009 17:17
Re: Vervanging F-16's
F-16 Still Popular 30 Years After Debut
Lockheed Martin executives ventured to the Paris Air Show prepared to extol the virtues of the F-35 joint strike fighter that the company is developing, and they have.
But the venerable F-16 still commands a large share of the limelight after more than 30 years in production.
And even as Lockheed officials pitched the F-35 and F-16 in Paris, some members of Congress were trying to keep yet another Lockheed plane flying. At the beginning of what will be a lengthy budget process, the House Armed Services Committee voted to require the Air Force to buy 12 more F-22 Raptor jets.
In a video conference interview Wednesday from the Lockheed chalet at Le Bourget Field in Paris, Ralph Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, said he was surprised by "the profound interest in the F-16" at the international air show.
Not too long ago, Lockheed officials had projected that F-16 production at the company's Fort Worth factory would likely end around 2010. New orders trickled in until the projection was for 2013.
Now, given the level of interest worldwide, Heath says F-16 production could extend through the next decade.
During the interview Heath was drowned out several times by the roar of the daily F-16 flight demonstration, which is a typical breathtaking display of aerobatic maneuvers.
In addition to orders already on Lockheed's books, Heath said, three or four nations are studying buying F-16s.
The biggest potential order pending is a long-developing plan by India to buy 126 aircraft. The F-16, the Boeing F-18 and several foreign jets are in competition.
"Should we win that, plus a few additional orders, we could be looking at another 10 years of production of the F-16," Heath said.
Questions about the F-16 in Paris this week "are not about when F-16 production will end, but what new technology can be introduced into the airplane," Heath said.
There is even a chance, albeit a long shot, that the U.S. could buy more F-16s. Although the Pentagon has resisted all such suggestions, some members of Congress are pushing the Air Force and Navy to buy some new models of existing jets to augment perceived aircraft shortfalls.
Heath said he doesn't favor and wouldn't recommend such a move, because it would divert government financial resources and industry attention from the F-35.
"If it were my decision, which it is not, that is the trade-off," Heath said.
Still, even with changes Lockheed has made at its plant to prepare for escalating rates of F-35 production in the next few years, Heath said the Fort Worth facility could handle a surge in new F-16 orders as it builds F-35s.
Heath said Lockheed is well-prepared to ramp up F-35 production as U.S. purchases begin to accelerate over the next several years.
"The biggest thing will be making sure our supply chain is taking steps to add their capacity," he said.
Lockheed received an additional $75 million contract Wednesday to continue development work on F-35 components. Production in Fort Worth of the midfuselage of Lockheed's F-22, which carries a $180 million price tag, is supposed to wind down next year.
But the armed services panel voted 31-30 Wednesday to spend $369 million to continue F-22 production. That money, if appropriated by Congress in the fiscal 2010 defense budget, would buy parts for 12 additional planes.
If F-22 production does tail off next year, as envisioned in the Obama administration's proposed defense budget, Heath said Lockheed will be challenged to hang onto many skilled workers because two or more years will pass before they are needed to build F-35s.
"This is one of our biggest management challenges, managing the work force. We have some unique talents and skills that would be lost. We're trying to minimize that."
June 18, 2009
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Lockheed Martin executives ventured to the Paris Air Show prepared to extol the virtues of the F-35 joint strike fighter that the company is developing, and they have.
But the venerable F-16 still commands a large share of the limelight after more than 30 years in production.
And even as Lockheed officials pitched the F-35 and F-16 in Paris, some members of Congress were trying to keep yet another Lockheed plane flying. At the beginning of what will be a lengthy budget process, the House Armed Services Committee voted to require the Air Force to buy 12 more F-22 Raptor jets.
In a video conference interview Wednesday from the Lockheed chalet at Le Bourget Field in Paris, Ralph Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, said he was surprised by "the profound interest in the F-16" at the international air show.
Not too long ago, Lockheed officials had projected that F-16 production at the company's Fort Worth factory would likely end around 2010. New orders trickled in until the projection was for 2013.
Now, given the level of interest worldwide, Heath says F-16 production could extend through the next decade.
During the interview Heath was drowned out several times by the roar of the daily F-16 flight demonstration, which is a typical breathtaking display of aerobatic maneuvers.
In addition to orders already on Lockheed's books, Heath said, three or four nations are studying buying F-16s.
The biggest potential order pending is a long-developing plan by India to buy 126 aircraft. The F-16, the Boeing F-18 and several foreign jets are in competition.
"Should we win that, plus a few additional orders, we could be looking at another 10 years of production of the F-16," Heath said.
Questions about the F-16 in Paris this week "are not about when F-16 production will end, but what new technology can be introduced into the airplane," Heath said.
There is even a chance, albeit a long shot, that the U.S. could buy more F-16s. Although the Pentagon has resisted all such suggestions, some members of Congress are pushing the Air Force and Navy to buy some new models of existing jets to augment perceived aircraft shortfalls.
Heath said he doesn't favor and wouldn't recommend such a move, because it would divert government financial resources and industry attention from the F-35.
"If it were my decision, which it is not, that is the trade-off," Heath said.
Still, even with changes Lockheed has made at its plant to prepare for escalating rates of F-35 production in the next few years, Heath said the Fort Worth facility could handle a surge in new F-16 orders as it builds F-35s.
Heath said Lockheed is well-prepared to ramp up F-35 production as U.S. purchases begin to accelerate over the next several years.
"The biggest thing will be making sure our supply chain is taking steps to add their capacity," he said.
Lockheed received an additional $75 million contract Wednesday to continue development work on F-35 components. Production in Fort Worth of the midfuselage of Lockheed's F-22, which carries a $180 million price tag, is supposed to wind down next year.
But the armed services panel voted 31-30 Wednesday to spend $369 million to continue F-22 production. That money, if appropriated by Congress in the fiscal 2010 defense budget, would buy parts for 12 additional planes.
If F-22 production does tail off next year, as envisioned in the Obama administration's proposed defense budget, Heath said Lockheed will be challenged to hang onto many skilled workers because two or more years will pass before they are needed to build F-35s.
"This is one of our biggest management challenges, managing the work force. We have some unique talents and skills that would be lost. We're trying to minimize that."
June 18, 2009
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
-
Hurricane
/kras.gif)
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 5415
- Joined: 05 Oct 2003, 18:03
- Type of spotter: F4 + H5
- Subscriber Scramble: Hurricane
- Location: EHVB
Re: Vervanging F-16's
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/4283 ... VO___.html
After some sillence we strike again; quote of the year I think; "If we want to be part of NATO a financial tribute is needed" as of our Mr Verhagen tries to explaines the funding/buying of the JSF ....
(looks like Saab is really gone...)
Adios,
Hurricane
After some sillence we strike again; quote of the year I think; "If we want to be part of NATO a financial tribute is needed" as of our Mr Verhagen tries to explaines the funding/buying of the JSF ....
(looks like Saab is really gone...)Adios,
Hurricane
Groeten,
Ron
Ron
-
aviodromefriend
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 3523
- Joined: 03 Dec 2006, 22:10
- Type of spotter: zo snel afgekeurd, ik kreeg geen kans S5 te worden
- Location: Airshows, EHKD, Where HAT eh took me
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Voor een minister van Buitenlandse Zaken maakt hij zich met zijn volgende rijtje NAVO hoofdsteden nog belachelijker:Hurricane wrote:http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/4283 ... VO___.html
After some sillence we strike again; quote of the year I think; "If we want to be part of NATO a financial tribute is needed" as of our Mr Verhagen tries to explaines the funding/buying of the JSF ....
Adios,
Hurricane
Verhagen in de T wrote:Ga dat de mensen in Londen maar uitleggen. Of de mensen in Madrid, in Bali, in New York. Ga dat de mensen in Georgië maar zeggen.”
De Zamboni heeft kramp in zijn achterwiel
Jan Maarten Smeets, Heerenveen 31 oktober 2009
Jan Maarten Smeets, Heerenveen 31 oktober 2009
-
Coati
- Scramble Addict
- Posts: 1561
- Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 19:53
- Type of spotter: S5
- Subscriber Scramble: No
- Location: Meppel, Netherlands
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Misschien moet jij wat beter lezen. Het zijn allemaal plaatsen waar aanslagen zijn gepleegd (m.u.v. Georgie). Leg jij maar eens even uit waar jij leest dat dit volgens Verhagen hoofdsteden van de Navo zouden moeten zijn. Bovendien staat dat hij op uitspraken van Agnes Kant reageert.
Joost
Joost
create your own database with www.spottingmode.com
-
nilsko
- Scramble Addict
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 14:53
- Type of spotter: F2
- Subscriber Scramble: No
- Location: Doorn
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Interessant verhaal inzake de engine discussie.
Credit: Coronet
Posted on: mil-spotters-forum@yahoogroups.com
==
Chuck Horner On The F136 War
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 6/30/2009 8:27 AM CDT
A few days ago, former Air Combat Command leader Mike Loh, who now consults
for Pratt & Whitney, wrote an op-ed for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
advocating the cancellation of the F136 alternate engine for the JSF. That
inspired a response to Ares from Desert Storm air commander Gen. Chuck
Horner, consulting for rival General Electric. Some of Horner’s comments:
I have a personal reason to argue for competing F-35 engines. I was the Wing
Commander at Luke AFB in 1979, and we flew F100-powered F-15 aircraft. There
was no second engine source at that time. Due to engine design flaws and a
lack of spare parts, I had 103 engines stored in a warehouse awaiting parts
and a total of 35 holes in aircraft parked on the ramp without engines.
Flying our daily schedule was a struggle, with our maintenance folks having
to work overtime due to the inexcusable lack of serviceable engines. Also,
one of the fixes was to reduce thrust to reduce heat stress on the engines,
which reduced F-15 performance - another inexcusable action if we sent those
jets into combat. I know firsthand why we needed the so-called Great Engine
War that led to the F100/F110 engine competition that served the Air Force
and the taxpayers so well.
Neither P&W nor the GE-Rolls-Royce team can assure us that they will not
encounter problems with their engines. To have two competing engines for the
same aircraft is merely prudent. This was the case recently with the Royal
Saudi Air Force.
I was at King Khalid AFB and the RSAF commander AB took me to his engine
shop. It was as well run as any I had seen before, with Saudi airmen in
white uniforms and a few American tech reps there to help as needed. The
F100 engines being repaired were everywhere, and there was a big table with
hot section parts on display that looked like someone had taken a blow torch
to them: melted metal, warped, twisted, really ugly.
The Saudi major-general asked what I could do. His pleas to P&W had fallen
on deaf ears as they were telling others that it was a Saudi maintenance
problem. The USAF training team consisted of aircrews, and they had told him
the depot was the place to make his case. I told him to talk to GE since
that engine was now qualified for the F-15, which was not the case when they
bought their jets.
It turned out that the F100-PW-229s were ingesting the fine sand in the air
and it melted going through the hot section. When the engine cooled, the
molten sand solidified into glass on the thermal barrier coatings in the hot
section, and eroded the coating, not unlike what ice does to concrete
surfaces. The F110-GE-129 does not use this coating and most of the sand is
routed away from the hot section.
When P&W heard the RSAF was looking at the GE engine they sent former
defense secretary Bill Cohen and retired Gen. Joe Ralston (Joe works for the
Cohen group) over to Riyadh. They met with Prince Khaled, deputy minister of
defense and aviation (his dad is the Minister and also the Crown Prince, and
Khaled was Schwarzkopf's counterpart in 1990-91) and told him the solution
was to reduce the thrust a bit and have a cooler running engine. I have been
told Prince Khaled replied: "I did not buy the F-15 to have it fly like a
F-5."
The RSAF changed all of its F100s over to F110-GE-129s. P&W bought the used
engines rather than have GE dump them on the market. The whole deal will be
paid for in less than ten years (the number six years sticks in my mind but
I am not sure) due to the decreased need to replace modules and hot section
parts and to borescope the engines.
==
Credit: Coronet
Posted on: mil-spotters-forum@yahoogroups.com
==
Chuck Horner On The F136 War
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 6/30/2009 8:27 AM CDT
A few days ago, former Air Combat Command leader Mike Loh, who now consults
for Pratt & Whitney, wrote an op-ed for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
advocating the cancellation of the F136 alternate engine for the JSF. That
inspired a response to Ares from Desert Storm air commander Gen. Chuck
Horner, consulting for rival General Electric. Some of Horner’s comments:
I have a personal reason to argue for competing F-35 engines. I was the Wing
Commander at Luke AFB in 1979, and we flew F100-powered F-15 aircraft. There
was no second engine source at that time. Due to engine design flaws and a
lack of spare parts, I had 103 engines stored in a warehouse awaiting parts
and a total of 35 holes in aircraft parked on the ramp without engines.
Flying our daily schedule was a struggle, with our maintenance folks having
to work overtime due to the inexcusable lack of serviceable engines. Also,
one of the fixes was to reduce thrust to reduce heat stress on the engines,
which reduced F-15 performance - another inexcusable action if we sent those
jets into combat. I know firsthand why we needed the so-called Great Engine
War that led to the F100/F110 engine competition that served the Air Force
and the taxpayers so well.
Neither P&W nor the GE-Rolls-Royce team can assure us that they will not
encounter problems with their engines. To have two competing engines for the
same aircraft is merely prudent. This was the case recently with the Royal
Saudi Air Force.
I was at King Khalid AFB and the RSAF commander AB took me to his engine
shop. It was as well run as any I had seen before, with Saudi airmen in
white uniforms and a few American tech reps there to help as needed. The
F100 engines being repaired were everywhere, and there was a big table with
hot section parts on display that looked like someone had taken a blow torch
to them: melted metal, warped, twisted, really ugly.
The Saudi major-general asked what I could do. His pleas to P&W had fallen
on deaf ears as they were telling others that it was a Saudi maintenance
problem. The USAF training team consisted of aircrews, and they had told him
the depot was the place to make his case. I told him to talk to GE since
that engine was now qualified for the F-15, which was not the case when they
bought their jets.
It turned out that the F100-PW-229s were ingesting the fine sand in the air
and it melted going through the hot section. When the engine cooled, the
molten sand solidified into glass on the thermal barrier coatings in the hot
section, and eroded the coating, not unlike what ice does to concrete
surfaces. The F110-GE-129 does not use this coating and most of the sand is
routed away from the hot section.
When P&W heard the RSAF was looking at the GE engine they sent former
defense secretary Bill Cohen and retired Gen. Joe Ralston (Joe works for the
Cohen group) over to Riyadh. They met with Prince Khaled, deputy minister of
defense and aviation (his dad is the Minister and also the Crown Prince, and
Khaled was Schwarzkopf's counterpart in 1990-91) and told him the solution
was to reduce the thrust a bit and have a cooler running engine. I have been
told Prince Khaled replied: "I did not buy the F-15 to have it fly like a
F-5."
The RSAF changed all of its F100s over to F110-GE-129s. P&W bought the used
engines rather than have GE dump them on the market. The whole deal will be
paid for in less than ten years (the number six years sticks in my mind but
I am not sure) due to the decreased need to replace modules and hot section
parts and to borescope the engines.
==
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Ach ja, en volgende week tovert GE weer een oud-generaal uit z'n hoed om Pruttel & Wilnie te dissen. Grappig vermaak wat uiteindelijk geen van beide fabrikanten ten goede komt...
Greetz,
Patrick
Patrick
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Heb je het verhaal wel gelezen? Als er al iemand gedisst wordt in dit stuk (wat helemaal niet het doel van schrijven is), dan is het P&W, die een motor leverde voor de F-15 die problemen kende en GE kwam de Saudi's redden.SquAdmin wrote:Ach ja, en volgende week tovert GE weer een oud-generaal uit z'n hoed om Pruttel & Wilnie te dissen. Grappig vermaak wat uiteindelijk geen van beide fabrikanten ten goede komt...
De kern van het artikel is echter dat hij het er niet mee eens is dat de F136 gecancelled wordt, omdat er altijd een alternatief aanwezig moet zijn, want concurrentie is gezond (dwingt tot perfectie) en als er een probleem is met de één, is er altijd een mogelijkheid om te kiezen voor de ander (zoals bij de F-15 het geval was)
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Wel gelezen, maar blijkbaar te snel. Hoe dan ook, er gaat een vermogen op aan lobbywerk in dit project.kiwi wrote:Heb je het verhaal wel gelezen? Als er al iemand gedisst wordt in dit stuk (wat helemaal niet het doel van schrijven is), dan is het P&W, die een motor leverde voor de F-15 die problemen kende en GE kwam de Saudi's redden.
Als de stelling is dat er niet gekozen gaat worden, maar simpelweg twee verschillende motoren moeten komen (waarvan de ontwikkeling gefinancierd wordt door de overheid) is er geen sprake van concurrentie...kiwi wrote: De kern van het artikel is echter dat hij het er niet mee eens is dat de F136 gecancelled wordt, omdat er altijd een alternatief aanwezig moet zijn, want concurrentie is gezond (dwingt tot perfectie) en als er een probleem is met de één, is er altijd een mogelijkheid om te kiezen voor de ander (zoals bij de F-15 het geval was)
Greetz,
Patrick
Patrick
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Natuurlijk moet er een keuze gemaakt worden (dat is bij de F15 geweest voor de P&W variant). Echter is die keuze niet gemaakt (en lijkt erop niet gemaakt te hoeven worden), maar mocht er een keuze zijn die nog gemaakt moet worden, dan is er uiteraard sprake van concurrentie. Maar ook nog na die keuze is er dus reden voor 2 fabrikanten, want mocht er wat mis blijken te zijn met de F135, zou de F136 als alternatief genomen kunnen worden, zoals bij de Saudi F15's problemen waren met de P&W F100 en bleek dat die problemen niet bestonden met de GE F110
Re: Vervanging F-16's
nilsko wrote:Thatinspired a response to Ares from Desert Storm air commander Gen. Chuck Horner, consulting for rival General Electric.
Ja ja, ik denk dat jij iets teveel in de goede bedoelingen van de man gelooft. Hij wordt gewoon betaald door GE en wil dus dat die motoren ook worden opgenomen. Op zich niets mis mee, maar zoals Squadmin al zegt, het gaat hier helemaal niet om ´concurrentie en daardoor betere motoren´. Het gaat er gewoon om dat GE ook een paar duiten wil verdienen.kiwi wrote:De kern van het artikel is echter dat hij het er niet mee eens is dat de F136 gecancelled wordt, omdat er altijd een alternatief aanwezig moet zijn, want concurrentie is gezond (dwingt tot perfectie) en als er een probleem is met de één, is er altijd een mogelijkheid om te kiezen voor de ander (zoals bij de F-15 het geval was)
Erwin
-
Hurricane
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 5415
- Joined: 05 Oct 2003, 18:03
- Type of spotter: F4 + H5
- Subscriber Scramble: Hurricane
- Location: EHVB
Re: Vervanging F-16's
Is dit niet de drijfveer van alle bedrijven die betrokken zijn & waar het uiteindelijk allemaal om gaat ??Het gaat er gewoon om dat GE ook een paar duiten wil verdienen.
Erwin
Adios,
Hurricane
Groeten,
Ron
Ron