Only about seven of the U.S. Air Force's 21 B-2 bombers are ready to go at any time, and now, a combination of robots, sprayers and quality control are trying to double the readiness rate. But for a long time, the B-2 has been known as a "Hanger Queen" (an aircraft that spends too much time in the hanger for maintenance or repairs).
Two years ago, the U.S. Air Force introduced the use of robots to reduce the maintenance efforts required to keep their B-2 bombers flying. The B-2 uses a stealth (anti-radar) system that depends a lot on a smooth outer skin. That, in turn, requires that the usual access panels and such on the B-2 must be covered with tape and special paste to make it all smooth. And after every flight, a lot of this tape and paste has to be touched up, either because of the result of flying, or because access panels had to be opened. All this takes at lot of time, being one of the main reasons the B-2 required 25 man hours of maintenance for each hour in the air. Since most B-2 missions have been 30 or more hours each, well, do the math. The readiness rate of the B-2 fleet (of 21 aircraft) has been about 35 percent, which is less than half the rate of most other aircraft. This means, that whenever there is a crises that requires the attention of B-2s, there are not many of these bombers ready to fly.
The main base for B-2s is in Missouri, and over a thousand maintenance personnel are assigned to take care of 21 aircraft there. A team of four robots were installed, to liquid coating to B-2s, thus cutting maintenance hours in half. But there were quality control problems with the liquid coating, often forcing maintenance crews to go back to tape and paste. Now the quality control problems are thought to be solved, and, if that is the case, the readiness rate of B-2s may go up to 70 percent. Maybe, if everything works out.
B-2s still requires a special, climate controlled hangars. There are some portable B-2 hangers, that can be flown to distant bases, thus keeping the bombers in the air less, and reducing the amount of maintenance needed. B-2 quality hangers have been built at Guam, in the Pacific, and Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean Still, the cost to operate the B-2 is over three times that of the B-52. If stealth is not an issue (not much enemy opposition), than it's a lot cheaper to send a B-52. This is exactly what the air force does most of the time. But in a war with a nation possessing modern (or even semi-modern) air defenses, the B-2s can be very valuable. Costing over two billion dollars each to buy, and very expensive to operate, the B-2s provide that extra edge. No other nation has anything like the B-2s, although many are working on ways to defeat it's stealth and knock them down. Still, when equipped with over a hundred of the new SDB (250 pound, GPS guided Small Diameter Bomb), the B-2 would be a formidable one-plane air force.
I.
There have been many defense projects of this caliber, to include new airframes that were on schedule and cost.
Example: F18 and C17. Both came in on time, on cost. In fact the C17 is today “under” its anticipated cost per unit. The newer version of the F18 in its “E” variant came in on cost and schedule as well. For further information you can consult RAND and its published analysis of the F18E program and why it went so successful.
Your rationale here is that the six years of delay between what EADS places on some pad in Germany or Great Britain and then the date that it goes truly operational is normal. No, it is not! The F22 was delivered and about one year later operational. The F18E was delivered and within one year operational. The F16 was delivered in and operational within one year. The F15 was delivered and operational within a year. It is NOT the norm to build a plane and “call” it IOC and not really have it IOC until SIX (SECHS) years later. Any platform, to include the new F22 only has a finite life expectancy. Whether this platform is operational or not, the clock keeps on ticking. That is exactly why Jaeger 90 is a Stillbeburt. Too late in the game, this gen 4 platform will not be “viable” for a long time anymore in the future. Will the Germans use it for a long time? Yes, they have no choice. Like the F104 or F4 they will use this platform long after it’s expiration date and threat picture has made this platform obsolete.
II.
The Jaeger 90 was plagued with MANY “technological failures”. The canards were cracking, engines failing, the radar was not ready and functional even after 12 years delay, so they had to reach back and grab a very capable, yet older radar they basically already had (Telefunken I believe builds the F18 radar for the German F4s and the Blue Vixen in the British Harrier is a F18 spin off as well). Captor, including his “4th channel” (present on all US radars including those in the F16 block 50s BTW) already is more or less an updated early 90s F18 radar. The Jaeger 90 at least in 2005 had NO functional ECM system and NO air to ground capability; that 3 years after it was quote on quote “IOC”. No, that is NOT normal. And yes, despite the British having them, there is a reason why this platform is NOT used in Afghanistan or Iraq even today in 2006 (4 years after its theoretical IOC!); and this is NOT because there is no need.
Deutschland ist im Bereich der Handfeuerwaffen global ein Markfuhrer. Das heißt nicht das andere auch gute Produkte herstellen, jedoch in dieser Industrie hat Deutschland einfach ein großen Vorteil den meisten gegenüber. Mit Sauer, Walther, H&K, Mauser und Anschuetz ist man international nicht nur im gesamt Volumen das verkauft wird, aber auch in der Technik, Herstellung und breite der Pallete das angeboten wird stark präsent. Deutschland kann relative leicht eine neue Waffe entwickeln, in maße produzieren und deren Preis niedrig halten. Trotz Massen Anfertigung wird diese Waffe qualitative sehr gut sein weil die nationale Industrie dies einfach sehr gut machen könnte. Man muss nicht das Rad neu erfinden weil die Infrastruktur schon da ist. Die “Infrastruktur” und das instutionale Wissen für Erfolg ist da. Russland zum Beispiel kann bis heute kein anständiges Auto oder sogar eine Waffe produzieren. Die nationale Industrie dort ist im völligem Gegensatz zu Japan (als Vergleich) schwer strapaziert ein qualitatives Produkt ueberhaubt herzustellen. Dies ist auch reflektiert in deren Flugzeuge die Groß, mechanisch oft stark, aber primitive und unpraeziese gebaut sind. Im Berreich der Elektronik kann man sogar behaupten das die 10 Jahre oder mehr hinter der Kurve sind. Sogar heute ist es nicht ungewöhnlich wenn Nieten nicht ganz perfekt sitzen, oder Teile nicht völlig zusammen passen auf deren neusten Maschinen. Die Russen können gut AK47 bauen. Ob es einem passt oder nicht ist unwichtig. Die Realität bliebt die selbe – Die USA sind in der Technik, in gesamt Volumen, breite der kern technologien wo sie fuhren, und sogar Produktion deren Produkte / dessen Verfahren sie herzustellen, einfach an der Welt Fuhrungsposition in der Luftraum Technik. Von GPS hinzu AESA oder Stealth, oder sogar in dem Bereich der Turbinen, die USA sind weltweit der Marktfuehrer in der Technik in dieser Industrie. Im Bereich der militaerichen Luftfahrt ist dies noch extremer. Weil die USA die Geheimdienste haben und die Bedrohung kennen (Auch durch Erfahrung weil es “die” sind die N. Korea, China Libyen usw gegeueberstehen), weil ein Jäger wie ein Jäger 90 sich schwer auch auf IT lehnt für seine Leistung (Ein Bereich wo die USA wieder Welt führend da stehen) wird der Abstand in Überlegenheit nur noch großer. Diese Radars laufen mit regelrecht Millionen Zeilen Code, und wer ist in Bereich der Programmierung den Markt fuehrent? Deutschland? Nein. Die Tatsache das die USA in der Luftraum Technik führend sind und gleichzeitig im Bereich IT, macht sie zum Technologischem Weltmeister im bau von Militär Maschinen für die Luftfahrt von Drohne bis hinzu AWACS oder F22 oder AMRAAM D oder AIM9X. Es ist schwer für jemanden mit den USA mitzuhalten im Bereich der “Aerospace” ueberhaubt. In den USA sind über 2 Millionen private Piloten. Es sind vier mal so viele grosskoerper Maschinen für die zivile Luftfahrt in Verwendung wie im dem wiedervereinigtem Deutschland gesmapt. Man hat regelrecht duzende auf Luftraum Technik spezialisierte Zeitschriften, Univaesitaeten (http://www.erau.edu/ ) usw.……… Da ist einfach viel mehr da und viel mehr Potezial.
Die Luftraumfahrt ist zu den USA wie die Auto Industrie zu Deutschland. Lockheed ist für Fort Worth einer der größeren Arbeitgeber. Boeing ist in Seattle einer der großen. Cessna ist in Oklamoma einer der größeren usw. Raytheon zum Beispiel ist alleine schon so groß wie gesamt EADS zusammen gerechnet (Eurocopter, Airbus und allem anderen)! Die USA haben im Bereich der Luftraum Technik die technologische und prodktions weltposition eins. Man hatte die Idee vor Jahren in diesen Markt einzubrechen und gründete Airbus, später EADS gesamt. Und sogar dann muss man eingestehen das die USA einen großenteils “privaten” Aerosapce Sektor haben der von der breite der angebotenen Produkte mehr abdekt, technologisch immer noch voraus ist, und im gesamt Volumen von Fachkräfte bis hinzu gesamt wert der Industrie EADS immer noch regel recht als “klein” hinstellt. Man spielt gern spiele und behautet Eurocopter (Typisch staatliche Konsolidierung) ist großer, aber wiefiel großer ist den Eurocopter im vergleich und dan schau dir mal den US Markt “gesamt” an: Boeing, Hughes, Sikorsky, Bell, usw. Sogar da ist dies nicht “wirklich” der fall das Eurocopter großer ist, außer man schaut sich nur ein Bruchteil der US Hersteller an und betrachtet nicht das gesamt Volumen in Produktion, Fachkräfte oder gesampt wert der Industrie.
Es sind nicht die USA die Airbus massiv (ca 1/3 mit R&D) unter den aermen greift. Es ist nicht die US Luftwaffe die heute mit alten AIM 9L, AMRAAM B oder F4 rum fliegen. Es sind die Deutschen. Wieder sehr Typisch das die Situation auf den Kopf gestehlt wird. In Deutschland hat man ein Problem mit der Realität. Ob Teresienstaadt, die Vernumpft der Subvensionspolitik oder eine so genannte ordentliche “sozial Politik”; Man hat dort einfach oft eine schwere zeit mit der Wahrnehmung der Realität weil man in einer idiologich links geprägten Phantasie Welt lebt. Wen du meinst das es die Amerikaner sind die mit Subventionen diesen Erfolg mit dem JSF ermöglichen dann lebst du einfach wie 90% deiner Mitmenschen in Deutschland in dieser Phantasie Welt. Grade der Gegenteil ist war. Wenn Lockheed nicht “per Vertrag” die timeline einhaelt bekommen die ein Straffgelt auf gezwungen das sogar per Gericht “enforceable/dursetzbar” ist. Wenn die bestimmte Zeile erreichen, oder Leistungen überschreiten so bekommen die ein Bonus. Wir redden über echte “private” Firmen sogar mit Raytheon (Die sich über die Jahren auf Militär fast Komplet spezialisierten). In den USA hat man eine “selbst tragende” Aerospace Industrie. Sie existiert weil sie profitabel ist. In Europa hat man eine zum großenteils von Staat erfundene Firma die sogar heute noch vom Staat subventioniert wird. Aber macht ruig weiter! Weiter so. Weil am ende, auch wen du es leugnest, gab es NIE eine “sozialemarktwirtschaft” die langfristig Resultate brachte. NIE! Also, subvensioniere die Braunkohle, solar energie, Windraeder, die Bahn, EADS, tausend Bauern uvm, wir sehen ja heute schon wie gut dies funktioniert!
BMW – Privat und erfolgreich – ohne Subventionen und fuetterert sogar Geld in dem Staat hinein.
EADS – Staat – subventioniert und “Kostet” dem Steuerzahler Geld – saugt Geld aus der Wirtschaft raus. Hat solche Erfolge wie: Jäger 90, Herkules, Galileo, A380, und Tiger. Herkules, das ist ja schon lustig wie man da den schleichenden Rueckzieher machte.
III
The US can’t afford to play nonsense games like most European states. France and Great Britain are in the same boat with the US, but most are not. Ultimately if Austria has no Air force today (as is practically the case); it does not matter. If the German Luftwaffe fly’s a F4 until 2012, it does not matter. But if the USN operated the F14 or A6 any longer it DOES matter! Whether Afghanistan, Iraq or a defense scenario of S. Korea, the US is involved. If Iran gets bombed, it will be the US to execute the mission make no illusions about it. Lacking capabilities equates to loosing lives for us, not for you. If the German soldier has no body armor, if some even in 2003 still wore steel pot helmets (As in the Munitions depot in Koeppern in 2004 – and this was active duty), it does not matter. A “Kasernen-militaer” does not need to worry about gaps in capabilities. No German soldier will get shot dead in Hessen by an insurgent.
Let me give you an example: The F18E is a fantastic plane. It is a F18C on steroids just like a Jaeger 90. But the USN basically bought a plane that like the Jaeger 90 will run into issues in Air to Air combat fairly soon. But they also needed a F14 replacement “NOW” not tomorrow. The threat to US carriers is real, not theoretical. So the USN had a plan where they phase in a platform such as the F18 Super Hornet that fills the immediate need but they intentionally design it with massive growth potential for future rolls as a tanker, bomber and jammer where it still will be viable in 2015 and there after. In around 2012 they will then begin to task the A2A mission to the JSF which will be more effective in this role because of his “capabilities”. The F18E will live on for a long time and serve other purposes very well long after it was replaced in this capacity. Sometimes the US will pour large sums of money into systems that have a very limited spectrum of use and may be useless the day a conflict is over. Many of our Vietnam river patrol boats today are in the Israeli Navy. Many of the IED jammers in Iraq are worthless in a war against N. Korea. But we still need them, and we need them today!
A large portion of the US defense budget is gobbled up on “Operations”. Real world missions such as in Iraq cost real money. Planes log thousands of flight hours, air frames fatigue, fuel is bought in thousands of tons per day. Real cruise missiles are fired, LBG’s/JDAMS dropped, tanks get damaged, people die (That costs a lot too)….. The US spends hands down more on R&D than all of Europe combined for war machines. However, a platform like the F18E (Basically a new plane) had LESS money pumped into it then the Jaeger 90 project! LESS! It’s not as if the US war industry has an unlimited budget or is allowed to be stupid. They have to “bid” on contracts, in a competitive way unlike the Jaeger 90 which really had no threat nor competition. Was there ever a serious bid for a competitor on the Jaeger 90? The US R&D budget is divided among thousands of various projects from SDI, to FCS or a JSF. The Germans for example have some niches where they try to make themselves large, but are not covering the whole gambit from nuclear warheads to SDI to explosive detectors for troops in Iraq. So the Germans buy PAC3 Patriot, Standard Missile 3 and are in MEADS, but the bulk of the costs are US even in the latter where the Germans are partners. The US covers the whole spectrum while the Germans cover niches. Furthermore, the Germans don’t have the costs associated with real world missions like the US. A defense budget of 418 Billion does not mean the US can waste money.
IV
a. Back to Australia and the best choice for a F111 replacement.
For them, the best alternative today (If they had to buy a new platform right now), would be a F18E in my opinion.
Again, it’s about “capabilities” that make the platform be able to do a mission. The F18E simply has the range and the payload. Grippen, Jaeger 90, Rafale……none offer the range and payload. Only the F15 would be a viable alternative. But the F18 in this case would be a better choice. Why:
1. The F18 is carrier capable. (Less important)
2. The F18 is operated by the USN, it is a maritime platform. The development plans of the USN in future upgrades and the ordinance development is 100% in step (compatible) with what the Australians would need. The USN plans to use the F18E to bomb ground targets and sink ships far away with it in the future and the direction they are heading with development is what Australia could use. (More important)
Example: The Brits have invested millions in upgrades to the Tornado since they also use this platform for the A2A role. Australia in this case would not have to worry about the future developments of the Super Hornet being incongruent with their needs. Basically the USN flips the bill for R&D and the Aussies benefit from it.
The only other viable options seen as a platform, is if Australia would buy Russian. They do have some very interesting planes in this class that could compete. But other issues – availability, long term cost, NATO compatibility etc pretty much disqualify these platforms even though they are from the perspective of shear kinetics (range, payload etc) highly capable.
b. The tanker example was just that: an example. The point was simple to understand. One tanker might top off 25 fighters, and he can loiter for 8 hours or more. Australia operates two squadrons of F111’s. How many tankers do they need?
Besides, everyone knows that Australia will buy a KC30 from Northrop Grumman :-)
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/solutions/australian_british_tankers.shtml
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/kc30/index.shtml
Yes, the KC30 is an A330 basically (That was a joke). But again, why did this plane win the bid? Probably a good value, the right capabilities at the right time. Jaeger 90 does not fit this bill. Expensive, late and with capabilities that are based on a Cold War West European defense scenario threat picture packaged in a platform that like the F18 is already beginning to show it’s age (4th gen), the Jaeger 90 will be a flop. The platform itself is highly capable when you pit it against it’s peers (F16/18) but the plane came toooooo late. Had Jaeger 90 hit the market in 1995 this plane would have sold, but in 2006? We see the answer in sales; despite the conspiracy theories your fellow Germans will concoct to cover up a miserable failure. R&D, test and evaluation and certain manufacturing needed machines/hardware in a modern fighter is a substantial portion or its cost. If I divide the cost of these “fixed” cost inputs over 5,000 units the cost per unit drops more than if I divide it between 1,000 units. A JSF is about the same cost of a Jaeger 90, despite more capable electronics, stealth and a platform that is FAR more versatile in its application. Why? Lean manufacturing, lower cost place to manufacture, larger volume production, production that is by the lowest bidder and not who contributed what percent to the consortium as with EADS. It is quiet literally the case that JSF and Jaeger 90 will go truly operational about the same time: 2008. It is quite literally the case that they both cost just about the same. So what do you think will sell?
Did you know the USAF considered the KC30 as well? However, the US is in a slightly different boat. There you have a situation where it’s not as pressing an issue. The USAF needs new tankers but there is no rush. Furthermore, the US government frowns on purchasing a platform from Airbus that is being funded with direct subsidies. Even if built in the US by NG, Airbus will still reap profits from this sale. So within the US, there are political forces at work to prevent such a purchase for sure. The US will buy Diel, H&K, Thyssen, Rhein Metal and other products, but there is a trade dispute on going here and buying an A330 would equate to rewarding behavior that the government sees as unfair trade practices that are largely backed by the governments within the EU who created this EADS under which Airbus falls.
V
Jaeger 90 compared to F18C.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/ef20006.html (Jaeger 90 cockpit)
http://www.sintrade.ch/fa18cockpit.htm (F18 cockpit)
Range F18C vs. Jaeger 90 is the same for all practical purposes.
F18C payload vs. Jaeger 90 is the same for all practical purposes.
Radar is the same is capabilities; in fact Captor is based on the F18 radar.
Canopy design is near identical.
Both are twin engine narrow mount.
Both are in the same weight and thrust class.
Both were designed to maximize the performance in what is called the “trans sonic” range. About mach .7 – 1.5. Both have excellent low speed performance because of their inherent design. Jaeger 90 uses canards and F18 has over pronounced forward leading edges. At low speed both do very very well, something the Viper can’t quite do as well. The Jaeger 90 borrowed the concept of the computer controlling the turns (F16), but being able to over ride them for a jerk and shoot (like on F18), unlike the Viper where he can’t over ride the system. Again, the F18 had it first, but this same feature is on a Jaeger 90. Both have enormous climb rates because of how they were designed. Both have turbines that tend to “compress” more vs. developing thrust through “heating”. This type of motor tends to perform better at lower or middle altitudes, unlike the “heater” who tends to not loose performance as quickly when the air density sinks. Both were designed with RCS reduction in mind but lack true stealth. Both were designed to feature a comprehensive radar/electronics package. The Viper in it’s first versions had no BVR capabilities. He was not able to fire sparrow until later. Planes like the F18 were designed with a lot of this in mind, and the Jaeger 90 follows suit. Both are STOL platforms that were designed using a lot of composites, and specialty alloys (Something intentionally not done on the Viper to cut costs). Both were intended to be single seat multi mission all weather platforms (Unlike a F117, F15C….. specialized).
Please give me one example of A2A warfare where the fight went over Mach 1.6? I don’t care if it’s Vietnam, Falklands, Balkans, Iraq 1991, Israel in its wars, and Pakistan/India in their feuds…… You will not find one example.
Good read: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng1-5.htm
1. The fight today is BVR
2. The fight is in the Transonic range (roughly) .7~1.2
3. It’s more the “sustained” turn rates that matter.
The reason why a F18 or even new JSF can’t go that fast is because it does not matter! They don’t “waste” other performance parameters on the need to increase an aspect of a planes performance that after a certain point is irrelevant. Mach 2.05 is just as good as mach 2.3. Vladimir on his MagicMig web page might feel compelled to state that the MIG29 is faster than a Viper, but in the end that Viper has always handed the Fulcrum its ass (Balkans, Iraq). Literally NEVER, has there been a single case where air to air combat was conducted over mach 1.6. NEVER! But if you look at monsters like the Raptor you realize that these planes can go these speeds where all the work is done in mil power. They can get there in a hurry and sustain it like no other. The “experts” in www.waffenhq.de might think that being able to go mach .1 faster means much, but it does not. If shear speed were all that mattered, the MIG25 would not get it’s ass handed to it every time it met a F15 (slower). The F18 was finely tuned to bring the performance where it mattered in this range where you in reality you do all your work (The trans sonic range). Jaeger 90 followed this example as well. Jaeger 90 was not built to fly mach 2.5, but he will do really well at 450 knots where the fight realistically is. The F18 was the predecessor and it’s a known fact the Jaeger 90 borrowed a lot from this platform in design but more importantly in concept. Why do I mention this about performance? Because if a plane has a slight kinetic advantage in an instantaneous turn or is able to exceed mach 2 is really “Superfluous”. What matters is the planes ability to give the pilot good SA within WVR and off bore sight capability as with an AIM9X or someday IRIS-T. In the realm of kinetics, what matters more today is a planes ability to accelerate, it’s sustained turn rates and it’s ability to maintain a high tempo in a fight. The Jaeger 90 and his super duper new g-suit, is like a new super good socket 7 processor in 2006. Who cares!? Do you realize that when they were developing the JSF they were originally designing the aircraft with a 7.5g maximum? Why? Because it does not matter that much. Example: If you approach a F22 within 90 degrees offset from his direction of his movement, that fighter is still “offensive” against you. In other words, he will engage and kill you BVR and WVR even though you coming from his side.
The F18 sold fairly well. The F18 was outsold by the F16 not because of shear capabilities, but cost. Again, NOTHING can beat a Viper in cost. Those who bought the Viper probably would have bought the Viper anyway, even if Jaeger 90 had made its schedule. But where the Jaeger 90 would have done some damage is with sales of the F18. Both of these planes would have been direct competitors, and in all reality the Jaeger 90 would have outperformed the F18 slightly since if nothing else, those needing a land based fighter don’t need to carry 1,200 pounds of extra weight along to be able to land on a carriers. The F18 was never build in a land only version, only in a carrier version. As such, this platform has some design features for low speed landings, wings folding up for carrier storage and extra weight in landing gear not needed and only subtracting form the planes payload/range/performance for those who don’t care about being able to land on a carrier. The Jaeger 90 would have given especially those interested in the F18 a close competitor, most likely even a slightly more powerful platform in shear specs if carrier operations are not essential.
Again, it all boils down to the issue of: Timing. Today the Jaeger 90 already faces competition from newer generations of planes that are in the same price range. That spells “failure” for the Jaeger 90, except for those who developed and are within the project such as Great Britain, Spain, Germany and Italy. But even there it is likely that those who are buying both JSF and Jaeger 90 will eventually make the Jaeger 90 a stepchild within their AF since this plane is less capable than a JSF in every mission profile. The Jaeger 90 is simply already an old plane when it is new. It’s a very good old plane!
The US had the phased array before ANYONE in Europe had them on war ships (Example: Aegis), ADA (example: Patriot 1990 already) and in planes Golden Eagles/F15 (2001). http://www.ll.mit.edu/news/journal/pdf/vol12_no2/12_2devphasedarray.pdf Let me state this again since your delusional – NO ONE in Europe had a Phased Array or AESA on a ship (Germany 12 years after the US), Plane (Germany will have it about 11 years after the US) or ADA missile (Germany procured this about 5-6 years after the US and basically BOUGHT it from us) before the US. IN FACT, much of the radar technology you have in Europe is based out of Great Britain, Germany and France and largely/heavily relies on US based systems.
Let me explain to you just how significant the advantage is - http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen Do you know what the Core language is that runs most of these radars even radios? Ada. Why that link in the sentence previous? Go look and read what the primary languages are that drive the entire planes electronics. Ask yourself where Ada was developed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_programming_language (The language that drives basically everything in your plane essentially is US developed). Read a little about the language C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language
Here’s the problem when you compare the US to others when it comes especially to military aircraft. The US has in volume sold and manufactured, by total revenue, by people employed, by money invested in R&D the largest aerospace sector in the world (period). The US is in the field of electronics, radar’s, computing (Intel, AMD, TI, Motorola etc) and computer programming the world’s leader. The US has with Pratt and Whitney, GE and Garrett the world’s leaders in turbine technology. When you put it all together you end up with a nation that is capable of quite literally squatting and shitting a new plane within a short time period. Risk of major technological failure is lower, costs for a comparable product is lower, time to bring this product to the market is faster, probability of fielding new leaps in technology that give a significant advantage over previous airframes is likely (F111/terrain following swing wing etc, F4 BVR radar etc, today stealth and advanced electronics). It’s the complete infrastructure across all pertinent technologies that are needed to build a military plane than makes the US so great at it.
Another example of this in action. Germany is in realms of automotive technology one of the world’s leaders. They have a heavy steel and specialized metal industry. Lot’s of engineers, lots of production capacity, lots of little to huge firms capable of manufacturing components needed in the auto industry, which in reality is to this day Germany’s economic backbone. If the BW has a requirement for an armored personnel carrier since the lessons learned in Somalia (Germans were there) and the Balkans taught that the old way of thinking needs to change Germany can quickly react with a well designed product they are capable of mass producing at a reasonable cost. Likelihood of major technological failure or inconsistencies in quality if mass produced is low. http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/dingo-kmw.htm After what happened in Afghanistan where German troops died while traveling in a bus, I’m sure the Germans easily and swiftly were able to procure within Germany a new armored vehicle. The Germans are in this area very strong. Example: Leo2 which competes with other on international markets. Without going into the details of which tank is better and why, lets just state that the Leo has been an export success largely because the Germans are able to build a competitively priced, qualitative well built, yet mass produced tank, which can be nearly guaranteed that it will be delivered on time and bring excellent performance. The Germans have a great specialty steel sector, good diesel manufacturers, literally thousands of mechanical engineers and a solid infrastructure to be capable of designing such a vehicle. Germany has the inherent industries with Rhein Metal, MTU, KMW and others to build an excellent tank, quickly, with little risk. That’s exactly what happened. The Germans are capable of building a Tornado, Alpha jet and today Jaeger 90. But they are in this arena not as powerful as the US or even Russia, no matter what they want to “pretend” they are. Germany in this area is a follower more than anything else. That is exactly what a Jaeger 90 is. It’s a F16 on steroids. A newer better version of a F18.
“But EF has the same display system as the F-22 (same company - same displays other configuration) - that's good enough for now and tomorrow. The helmet display can show all sensor data (data link!) so future sensors will be embedded also (if a show floor option is found crucial, I think they will get it (bolt on ;-)) but I think the EFs roles don't cry for that. I can imagine that england (most relevant country using EF) will stand to it's todays plan on operating the EF for the next 60 years” You said
Without insulting you to much, bottom line, you’re clueless. What you do is this: F22 has radar, Jaeger 90 has radar, F22 has stealth, Jaeger 90 has stealth, F22 has two engines, Jaeger 90 has 2 engines, F22 has some displays, and Jaeger 90 has displays too! See, Jaeger 90 is equal to F22. This is retarded nonsense. What is that display hooked up to! You know, a Trabant also has 4 wheels, an engine, and steering wheel. Therefore a Trabant is equal to a Rolls Royce in your thinking. You are so far from reality that further discussion is useless with you.
snip
snip