Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by phil gollin on Today at 07:02:20 am »
The shape at the front does remind me of the character "Randy" from the film Monsters Inc.
Aerospace / Re: USAF plans F-15 modernization
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 06:37:02 am »
F-15SA construction time lapse. Usually only seeing the finished product or still shots from the factory floor, you really forget (or at least I do) how incredibly complex these machines are.
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by Hood on Today at 06:31:18 am »
Interesting, there are a couple of non-paywall stories, but all quoting the original Times story it seems. This is the best one

Enders dream seems to be the unification of the defence arms of Airbus, BAE Systems, Dassault, SAAB and Leonardo into one giant defence aerospace company. Whether he wants it under the Airbus banner or separate is not clear, though I suspect the former.

Not sure what to make of this, if anything. Airbus doesn't have a fighter company, it has a 46% stake in Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH via Airbus Defence and Space. Airbus Defence and Space is not a 'fighter' company, its military aircraft products are all transport-related (A400M, MRTT and C295). Perhaps its a tacit admission that Airbus is not qualified to undertake a leading role on a military fast jet programme, especially given their eagerness to follow Dassault's lead.

Still more questions than answers, a few of my ponderings are; is Enders proposing to sell Airbus's stake in Eurofighter to BAE Systems? Is he proposing to dump his troubled Airbus Defence sector so Airbus can concentrate on its airliners? Or does he think BAE Systems will go fully down the systems route and divest itself of Warton to Airbus? Where does Dassault fit into all this and could they survive just as a business jet producer? Would the UK and Sweden as non-EU nations be happy to hand their defence aerospace capabilities to Airbus? In the helicopter field, Airbus and Leonardo are direct competitors, it would be hard to disentangle those competing designs into a rational family of helicopters. 
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by Dragon029 on Today at 06:03:29 am »
With engines; since around LRIP 8 they've generally been publicising the all-up flyaway cost rather than just the airframe cost.

You likely won't find a source explicitly stating that the deal includes the engines (not yet at least; they haven't reached a formal contractual agreement just yet for LRIP 11), but LRIP 10 had F-35As at $94.6 million "including jet, engine and fee". The chances of $89 million not including the engine (which is about $13 million), and all these reports about LRIP 11 having a 6% drop from LRIP 10 being wrong, particularly when the Pentagon was willing to issue a unilateral agreement on LRIP 9 to achieve cost reductions, is basically nil.
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by totoro on Today at 05:22:29 am »

The deal for 141 F-35s lowers the price of the F-35A, the most common version of the stealthy fighter jet, to about $89 million, down around 6 percent from $94.3 million in the last deal struck in February 2017, the sources familiar with the talks said.


Are those 89 million for 141 planes without engine, as previous lot contracts had?
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by fredymac on Today at 03:02:41 am »
Program updates from Lockheed program manager Greg Ullmer.

Aerospace / Re: MR version of A320 family?
« Last post by fightingirish on Today at 02:47:13 am »
Quote from: Airbus Defence and Space
Airbus evaluates an A320neo multi-mission version
The variant - designated A320neo MA (Modular Multi-Mission Aircraft) - would be designed to fulfill a range of C4ISR roles, including maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare.

Code: [Select]
Aerospace / Re: Another Who Done It?
« Last post by Skyblazer on Yesterday at 05:57:43 pm »
I'd like to offer the possibility that this is a the Fairchild M-171 "Fighter Bomber" or M-171A "Advanced Base Fighter".

I have never heard of these projects before. Do you have access to a complete list of Fairchild M- projects, by chance?
An M-171 proposal would be dated circa 1952, which is consistent with the design, I think.
However, I find it hard to imagine this type as a bomber... The fuselage it too narrow for it to carry bombs, and racks below the wings would kind of negate the STOL effect, wouldn't it? So a fighter, yes, why not?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10