Greatest strength greatest weakness

No one says that on the brink of oblivion but 5 minutes before and 10 minutes after, they were in full sales mode. Look what happened after the Cuban missile crisis the biggest nuclear buildup imaginable….and Vietnam. That little eyeball to eyeball challenge get together didn’t do a thing but sell more weapons.

You act like that’s a bad thing? Planned obsolescence is the capitalist cornerstone. What was said about the Soviets during the cold war? If we didn’t have the Russians, we’d have to invent them.

I doubt anyone said that during the Cuban Missile Crisis. War can make you rich, unless it gets you killed.

You act like that’s a bad thing? Planned obsolescence is the capitalist cornerstone. What was said about the Soviets during the cold war? If we didn’t have the Russians, we’d have to invent them.

US greatest weakness is procurement based on need for defense corporations to keep making money rather than actual requirement, resulting in unecessary push for technological overmatch that is not always strategically sound. It’s structural problems of industry plus ‘allies’ lobbying for weapons exports means American R&D is effectively being used to hasten the obsolescence of its own legacy systems.

Of course US is not the only party guilty of this. It was the British that sold the Soviets the RR Nene.

Why we are ALWAYS forgotten?
ITALY
weakness: ridicule military budget, pacifism of ruling class.
Strenght: concentered in some niche of products others (of the same overall dimension) left away.
So they absolutely rule in these yet still in the game in the big ones through multinational projects.

For the rest I’would differentiate about the innovation capability of US: in the basic technologies they are unbeatable thanks to the sheer numbers of their own civilian market in such products.
In the final military product they instead tend between two extremes: or they capitalize on such advantage to keep proposing updates of decades old items or at the contrary embark themselves into the production of wunderwaffen than 9 cases over 10 end in nothing and 999 over 1K into massive cost overruns.

That’s IMHO also for acquisition processes that are went totally out of control and fell totally into the hands of big firms on a side and the Congress in the other.
So let’s put development/acquisition as an american weakness (together with the multinational euro projects also, not a chauvinistic approach there) and instead as a sthrengt for Russia where their own very peculiar system (design bureau, state trials, first serials, production concern) allow a military and in the end government’s iron grip over the whole phases of it togheter with the possibility of a flexible approach to production and reliability issues (i.e. not putting all eggs in one basket).

Italy has a strong and dynamic industrial base and among the best technicians and engineer (in the sense that they are experienced with the largest area of projects (rotorcraft, tilt-rotor, prop airliner, prop and piston aircraft, UVAV, UAS, trainers, fighter jets, stealth fighter jets, missiles, space rocket, space plane and satellites. Just underlining its aerospace industry.

It is however notable that nobody came with the EU as a block.

Here we go…how about we all admit that they all owe their lineage back to the Wright brothers and move on?

Earlier, earlier. The Wrights didn’t invent everything from scratch. They built on the work of others (& nothing wrong with that), & were helped to learn about a lot of it by Octave Chanute, who was helping to promote developments in aviation by collecting & sharing information & advice.

I’m surprised no one jumped on this “Taiwan
strength: naturally and genetically smart”

Chinese poster?

US strength: they devote an humongous amount of money into it,
and field it a lot sooner than any other nation do, even on the cases where other nations are on par research wise.

Chinese has a sort of stewardship towards their children, to leave them better off than the parents were,
much much more so than any other race i ever encountered, this, combined with an infathomable greed
points towards accumulating wealth with no end in sight, which will have a direct impact once they caught up,
and as future evolutions promises ever more investment

Chinese accumulation of wealth (that is another debate whether its real wealth that increase country dependence on imported energy, increase pollution) is concentrated in coastal cities of China and coastal cities of US/Canada/Australia. these coastal cities are not known for aerospace and heavy military engineering. California cant make fighter or heavy choppers or a tank
50% of F-35 is built from parts outside US.
In 21st century. At most those so called Chinese STEM graduates can work on some internet crap or some self driving cars software using Japanese battery technology .

this is called practical improvement globally.

http://gpsworld.com/gnss-systemreceiver-designconsumer-gpsglonass-12359/
One-chip GPS/GLONASS receiver trials in London, Tokyo, and Texas sought to demonstrate that the inclusion of all visible GLONASS satellites in the position solution, in addition to those from GPS, produces much greater availability in urban canyons, and in areas of marginal availability, much greater accuracy.

Do you have a source you can sight about russian design teams?

there many others temprorary engineer import also for projects.

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/key_orgs/boeing-international/pdf/russia-cisbackgrounder.pdf
Boeing Technical Research Center
In 1993, Boeing opened the Boeing Technical Research Center (BTRC) in Moscow. Boeing cooperates with leading Russian research institutes to develop new materials for the aerospace industry. More than 600 Russian scientists and IT specialists work on Boeing contracts in flight science, titanium materials and technologies, flight safety training and IT.

Boeing Design Center
The Boeing Design Center (BDC) in Moscow is the largest design center for computer-aided design of aerospace structures outside the United States. The BDC consists of nearly 250 Boeing direct employees managing a team of 1,200 contract engineers from Russian and Ukranian aerospace companies Ilyushin, Sukhoi Aviation Corp. and Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, and private engineering services companies NIK Research and Engineering Co. and Progresstech.

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/03/10/u-s-titanium-supply-russia/

For instance, the United States currently imports around 79% of the titanium used in the production of civilian and military aircraft, as well as other important commercial uses.

But here’s where this gets downright frightening.

Russia’s Verkhnyaya Salda Metallurgical Production Association (VSMPO) is the major titanium supplier to Boeing (BA) and United Technologies (UTX).

Meaning two American defense firms are currently at the mercy of Vladimir Putin.

You might not want to write “genetic” when you mean “cultural”. You can easily defend a superior culture of engineering. You can not defend a superior genetic makeup for engineering, that is really, really not something I would say.

ok maybe you are right

You might not want to write “genetic” when you mean “cultural”. You can easily defend a superior culture of engineering. You can not defend a superior genetic makeup for engineering, that is really, really not something I would say.

Here we go…how about we all admit that they all owe their lineage back to the Wright brothers and move on? The Mig-25 was more of a revolution of evolution…Compared to a truly revolutionary design, like the SR-71, it was a conventional design pushed to the absolute maximum.

It was pushed to that extreme performance by one of Russia’s great strengths…as one of the posters pointed out, its engines. You have to give it to the Russians. Their engines put out huge amounts of power for their size and weight. It may be argued that they give up longevity to achieve that…I’m not sure if that’s accurate though due to the differences in how the West performs maintenance and nomenclature describing engine life.

indeed it was exactly as i said.

as for the taiwanese. its in their culture to excel in STEM.

Here we go…how about we all admit that they all owe their lineage back to the Wright brothers and move on? The Mig-25 was more of a revolution of evolution…Compared to a truly revolutionary design, like the SR-71, it was a conventional design pushed to the absolute maximum.

It was pushed to that extreme performance by one of Russia’s great strengths…as one of the posters pointed out, its engines. You have to give it to the Russians. Their engines put out huge amounts of power for their size and weight. It may be argued that they give up longevity to achieve that…I’m not sure if that’s accurate though due to the differences in how the West performs maintenance and nomenclature describing engine life.

Of course it is.. :applause: Both RA-5 and MiG-25 have a radome, a canopy, two engines, two wings and landing gear..

MIG-31 fly high and faster than US jets from primitive airfields. so how its not revolutionary. Revolutionary means that not easy to copy as it suppose to be so advanced for decades to come with no chance of airframes crack.

where you get this idea of industrious and fast to learn?. they have been flying jet MIGs since 1950s.

mig-25 is based on the us A-5. no A-5, no mig-25 or 31

US strength: they devote an humongous amount of money into it,
and field it a lot sooner than any other nation do, even on the cases where other nations are on par research wise.

Chinese has a sort of stewardship towards their children, to leave them better off than the parents were,
much much more so than any other race i ever encountered, this, combined with an infathomable greed
points towards accumulating wealth with no end in sight, which will have a direct impact once they caught up,
and as future evolutions promises ever more investment

If US has technology base than why Boeing using Russian design teams in its civilian airlines and titanium. why it is using Japanese composites.
technological base means free from imports both human and material.

Do you have a source you can sight about russian design teams?

US strength is technology base.
Weakness is the bloated, risk adverse government acquisition bureaucracy which drags out development programs for 20 years. In the 40s and 50s airplanes were designed built tested and delivered within 24 months. If a problem was found it was quickly corrected in the “B” version of the airplane. The.old way was more responsive to operational needs faster and cheaper.

If US has technology base than why Boeing using Russian design teams in its civilian airlines and titanium. why it is using Japanese composites.
technological base means free from imports both human and material.

US strength is technology base.
Weakness is the bloated, risk adverse government acquisition bureaucracy which drags out development programs for 20 years. In the 40s and 50s airplanes were designed built tested and delivered within 24 months. If a problem was found it was quickly corrected in the “B” version of the airplane. The.old way was more responsive to operational needs faster and cheaper.

So almost two person agree on a point there. Given the standards of such type of threads::D ASTOUNDING RESULT!:D

US strength is technology base.
Weakness is the bloated, risk adverse government acquisition bureaucracy which drags out development programs for 20 years. In the 40s and 50s airplanes were designed built tested and delivered within 24 months. If a problem was found it was quickly corrected in the “B” version of the airplane. The.old way was more responsive to operational needs faster and cheaper.