|
|
|
kaii
Oslo
|
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
F35
|
This image shows who builds the different components for F35.
Quite interesting to see how many partners are involved in this.
EDIT: Note that this does not include the weapons systems for the F35.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan Dave
Muskegon
MI USA
|
Posts: 8089
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
F35
|
Kai,
Can I order these parts?? ☺
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
|
Posts: 13377
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
F35
|
Interesting Kaii. Ostensibly Canada debated whether the F-35 or the Saab Gripen would be the next fighter for the RCAF. Some say that the Gripen would have been a better fit.
But your diagram reminded me that the F-35 development saw the participation of a large consortium, including Canada with a lot of money contributed to that development. I presume that all of the countries on that schematic were in the same boat. Perhaps they all negotiated construction contracts as part of the agreement to accept the F-35 as their aircraft.
So I wonder whether there was even a true contest at all, at least in Canada.
Cheers,
George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kaii
Oslo
|
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2010
|
|
|
|
F35
|
|
Quote: Interesting Kaii. Ostensibly Canada debated whether the F-35 or the Saab Gripen would be the next fighter for the RCAF. Some say that the Gripen would have been a better fit.
But your diagram reminded me that the F-35 development saw the participation of a large consortium, including Canada with a lot of money contributed to that development. I presume that all of the countries on that schematic were in the same boat. Perhaps they all negotiated construction contracts as part of the agreement to accept the F-35 as their aircraft.
So I wonder whether there was even a true contest at all, at least in Canada.
Cheers,
George
George that same debate happened in both Norway and Denmark too. The F35 and the JAS39 Gripen were the two final contenders and the Swedes feel that they were short handed and believe there was never any real competition. The F35 is a superior aircraft but the Swedes argued that one could buy 2 or 3 Gripen for the price of one F35. The evaulation that was used as basis for the Norwegian decision to go with F35 showed that the Gripen was the more expensive alternative over the life time. Was that rigged, as the Swedes claim? I really don't know.
The F35 has shown itself to be more than a match for Gripen and the Finnish F/A-18s in the joint Nordic air manouvres but the F35 also requires far bigger ground facilities than the Gripen. Norway has sort of put all eggs in one basket by basing all planes in one air base and with just a couple of other bases able o fill in once that one is knocked out. Gripen could operate from stretches of motorway and smaller air strips if necessary.
Ideally I'd like Norway to have both F35 and Gripen but I don't see that happening. With the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO I suppose the Nordic air forces will supplement each other and be able to conduct the whole range of missions.
K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wazza
Sydney
Australia
|
Posts: 799
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
F35
|
Well one of the main points of joining the F35 family is its interoperability across Air Forces.
We have had the USMC imbedded amongst our F35 SQN's the past few weeks with RAAF technicians imbedded into their SQN.
Process and techniques are pretty much standard so no real issues and the blended flight lines worked really well.
Being ship based the USMC C models did have some very minor differences in pre flighting and launching.
We are also training British pilots as well.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
