dark light

Fedaykin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,686 through 2,700 (of 5,046 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: First export order for the LCA??? #2010396
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    And that is what the Royal Navy is banking on! That the price will be beyond other nations unless the government of the day goes totally insane and decides to sell at a massive loss.

    The RN wants to have two carriers, one in maintenance and general readyness, the other in operation and rotate between the two.

    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Agreed, another problem is that the politicians are too scared to tackle the real money pits like welfare and the NHS so defence gets picked on. However the MoD doesn’t help it’s cause with fiascos like FRES, MRA4 and the CVF contract, were it bringing projects in more or less on time and budget then it could be in a better position to resist pressure for cuts.

    Frankly with all the talk of MRA4 and CVF FRES gets missed by the press. Which angers me as the program is an utter mess and a fine example of the services gold plating something that should be simple – in this case the army.

    FRES should be simple! The Warrior IFV are worn out, the FV432 are obsolete and worn out and the Saxon are probably not needed any more as it was a battlefield taxi for the BAOR and useful in Northern Ireland. A number of manufacturers around the world produce designs that are proven to work off the shelf and just require the correct radio fit. All the MOD and army needed to do is pick something that doesn’t have inferior performance then what is already in service and ensure some offset! It doesn’t need to have massive capability improvements off the shelf, just work and have the capability to bolt on upgrades in the future which usually means the engine and transmission should handle more then the base requirement….oh and the water boiler pot that all British armoured vehicles have and the tankies couldn’t live without!

    Instead they kick off all sorts of blue sky thinking armoured vehicle of the future projects, then state they will get something off the shelf but it must be Redesigned to meet army needs. In other words complicate a process that should of been quick and easy. In the meantime the tankies have been forced to operate knackered AFV or a mishmash of illconcieved UOR procured vehicles!

    A RIGHT ROYAL BRITISH PROCUREMENT FIASCO!

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336200
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    I’m glad the Airbus partisans are taking this so maturely and not doing any name calling or hurling insults..:rolleyes:

    I would be fun to see an “educated laymans” explanation of why they went with Boeing.
    Example: Yes, the 330 is a newer aircraft but did that equate into a better product with lower operating costs?
    How did the costs break out?

    Hopefully, Aviation Week (and others) will have one when all the facts are told.

    Now what I’d like to see NASA/Boeing (and possibly Airbus or European research agencies if they care to contribute funds and effort) work on a blended wing tanker.
    A tanker would be a great POC for the configuration. JET A won’t compalin about lack of windows…
    It could be a huge breakthrough for the next generation of jetliners…which would help everyone.

    Whats the point buddy! In the end this would of gone on for ever, in the current economic situation it keeps people happy in the US. I think we are all bored watching this go round in circles…Congress and Joe public America want Boeing…Boeing they shall have!

    Many here myself included regard the A330MRTT as VASTLY superior but whats the point slinging mud. As I said nobody in Airbus will lose their jobs over not getting this contract the order books are full. You win some you lose some:cool:

    All I ask is Americans to be as pragmatic when European nations make protectionist decisions! Irony is North America is still a huge market for EADS, but I do feel sorry for the people in Alabama.

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336337
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    My official reaction…

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/sgt_schlappy/flair.gif

    Well have fun partying tonight!:D

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336346
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Well Boeing have to deliver on it now! Lets see how they do, if they guff it up we can all point and laugh!

    As far as I am concerned no Airbus worker was going to lose their job over not getting this contract, the civil order book is full and the A330MRTT is selling well all considered. The A330MRTT still has the market to itself until Boeing ramps KC46A and that could be years away.

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336389
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Roll on KC-Y!

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336393
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    The second he said that the extra features were not considered and they were calling it the KC46A I knew that was it.

    Done is done hope this isn’t dragged on further.

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336408
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Boeing got it…

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336438
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Well ten minutes to go, just making a cup of tea and the Pentagon channel is ready to go on my laptop.

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336570
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Nah that doesn’t make sense at all US Agent. Boeing has no desire whatsoever for EADS to set up a production line in North America, not because of the tankers but the Civil transport variants. The tanker contract is not a major part of the business and they could sell the aircraft at cost in an attempt to prevent EADS getting a foothold.

    But it aint over until the fat lady sings, I won’t blink an eye if they give it to Boeing.

    in reply to: Libyan Air Force Mirage F.1's in Malta #2336581
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Depends how the aircraft aproached the Island, also what is the flight time from Libya to Malta?

    in reply to: Boeing KC-X Victory (Merged) #2336605
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Whilst I have been an Airbus cheerleader I just want this all to be over! Whoever wins should just allow the other side to get on with it! In the end a contract loss does not risk the survival of either company!

    Fedaykin
    Participant

    Amen to that!

    in reply to: Options for MPA #2010556
    Fedaykin
    Participant

    MoD considers maritime patrol options
    http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=15587

    Well its clear now that the MOD has realised that an MPA is a capability that just can’t be cut.

    Fedaykin
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 2,686 through 2,700 (of 5,046 total)