News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
It will, there was a cgi mockup of it somewhere. A bolt on job like the QE's, it fitted so well it was almost as if they'd designed it that way...SKB wrote:Izumo at 248m long is 32m shorter than QE and will need a ramp.
Is QE's 'bolt on' ? If so means we could take it off without too much fuss. A good bit of kit and effective I concede but from certain angles like broadside on IMHO its ugly as sin, she would look so much prettier without! The USMC seem to manage fine with no ski jump and with much smaller ships too. If we took it off it would give us some extra helo spots in the LPH role or even catapults for UAV'sTimmymagic wrote:It will, there was a cgi mockup of it somewhere. A bolt on job like the QE's, it fitted so well it was almost as if they'd designed it that way...SKB wrote:Izumo at 248m long is 32m shorter than QE and will need a ramp.
Heresy on here I know!QE's ramp is not a single bolt-on structure. The ramp was fitted in several large sections to the bare metal flight deck surface during assembly and construction. Taking the ramp off would leave a 250 ft long bare metal "pothole" in QE's surface which would require resurfacing and heat proofing. It could be done, but it wouldn't be a quick process.Pongoglo wrote:Is QE's (ramp) 'bolt on' ?
Need a ramp? Need?SKB wrote:Izumo at 248m long is 32m shorter than QE and will need a ramp.
What royalties?sunstersun wrote:UK is the only partner that gets royalties for every FMS purchase.
On top of the fact that the a greater portion of the F-35B is produced by the UK.
nice
Nope, no other nation gets royalties.R686 wrote:What royalties?sunstersun wrote:UK is the only partner that gets royalties for every FMS purchase.
On top of the fact that the a greater portion of the F-35B is produced by the UK.
nice
All FMS is that the items are actually ordered by the US DOD and generally making use of economies of scale available to the US.
I suspect the royalties you refer to are the parts made for the aircraft across the consortisim so therefore all nations across the build process wins as these are additional orders.
sunstersun wrote:Nope, no other nation gets royalties.R686 wrote:What royalties?sunstersun wrote:UK is the only partner that gets royalties for every FMS purchase.
On top of the fact that the a greater portion of the F-35B is produced by the UK.
nice
All FMS is that the items are actually ordered by the US DOD and generally making use of economies of scale available to the US.
I suspect the royalties you refer to are the parts made for the aircraft across the consortisim so therefore all nations across the build process wins as these are additional orders.
Being a tier one partner, the UK gets royalties (dunno how much) for every FMS sale.
Following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the JSF Framework MOU with associated supplements, each partner signed as a tier one, two, or three partner. Partnership tiering, defined by the level of financial commitment each country makes to the system development and demonstration phase, comes with commensurate benefits. The UK, as a tier I partner, will be the first to pick its delivery schedule. Additionally, tiers define the level of insight into the design and development process. For example, for $2B, the UK is allowed 30 cooperative program personnel during the system development and demonstration phase of the program. As a tier II partner, the Italians, however, are only allowed 10 representatives in the program office andhave little influence on the capabilities except for their identified capability gaps in their ‘delta’ System Development and Demonstration version of the aircraft10 (see Table 1). The international representatives are dual-hatted, working for the US program director and their respective MoDs. They attend program reviews but are not allowed access to non- disclosure related content as defined by the National Disclosure Policy. Partner tiers also do not determine the level of industrial participation. Work share is defined as the percentage of industrial participation each partner secures. It is the holy grail of international cooperative programs and, by far, its most acrimonious component.
see edit.R686 wrote:
Have you got a source for that?
Every single source I’ve come across makes no mention of royalties, but does go to show the level of input into the program as an example,being a their one partner also did not commit you to actually buying the aircraft. Just you level of development but if you have a source I’d be very interested in reading that.
Thanks, not doubting you but would really like to see that in black and white in from an offical sourcesunstersun wrote: see edit.
Although the input into weapons integration seems to have run out of 'influence' regardless how many 'heads' you have on the prgrm, the third element is (rather than royalties) that Tier I (i.e. the one and only) is exempt from paying FMS feesR686 wrote:The UK, as a tier I partner, will be the first to pick its delivery schedule. Additionally, tiers define the level of insight into the design and development process. For example, for $2B, the UK is allowed 30 cooperative program personnel
There's no way I can sim through official sources rn, but...R686 wrote:Thanks, not doubting you but would really like to see that in black and white in from an offical sourcesunstersun wrote: see edit.
A couple I used
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a514284.pdf
ANALYZING THE MULTI-NATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACQUISITION ASPECT OF THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF) PROGRAM
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat55.pdf
International Arament Cooperative Programs: Benefits, Liabilities, and Self-Inflicted Wounds – The JSF As A Case Study
Blimey, an additional order of 100 on top of their prior planed purchase of 40. I wonder how many will be the B variant.sunstersun wrote:https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Intern ... rs-from-US
Hurray for Japan!
although this does put their domestic jet program into question.
100 F-35Admereifield wrote:Blimey, an additional order of 100 on top of their prior planed purchase of 40. I wonder how many will be the B variant.
SL says the variant of the other 90 after the initial 48 aircraft has not yet been confirmed.
Says that decision won't be made for a V. long time.
F-35A is the less complex aircraft, and is thus cheaper to procure says Poffley.
Interestingly he says a lot is dependent upon the orders of other nations
Poffley: for the avoidance of any doubt, all initial 48 aircraft will be Bs.
Describes likelihood of an order of As as "pretty remote", but "analysis will be done"
Who was that? It seemed that Atha was the main name, followed Osborne, although he was a Nav so that was unlikelyRon5 wrote:There's been chatter about the appointments of the next heads of the RAF & RN. Surprising choices as more senior names were overlooked and explained by saying Williamson wants younger guys with transformational mindsets.
Just a passing thought but what if "transformational mindsets" is code for guys that don't participate in inter-service warfare of the kind sparked recently by various RAF types musing out loud that the RAF would be better off with F-35A's.
If I remember correctly, one of those doing the musing is also one of those that has been passed over.
. Maybe one will shift into CJO to wait for the next shot.