FedaykinBut if the USAF buys it, I’d demand offsets to make up for any foreign content costs above those of the 767.
That’s only fair to taxpayers in this lousy economic climate.
Offsets have been used for years and are common when one country buys another’s product.
Wow!
So 60% local content, local production, follow on orders from allies and transfer of cargo variant production to America isn’t a good enough offset for you.:rolleyes:
FedaykinDespite your attempt at humour, it does raise a general point as to what a Scottish Defence Force (as the SNP have referred to having) would look for in any independance agreement. But that would be a subject for it’s own thread if there isn’t one in the archive somewhere.
I doubt that they would look for a CVF, however Conventional F35s from a later delivery batch could be re-negotiated for an air component to go along with it’s share of Typhoons.What I would say is that should an independance vote happen, there would be a 5-10 year divorce period during which even with current governmental delays should see both CVFs completed prior to the decree absolute.
I doubt that any independant Scotland would be looking towards any major air or naval component it does’t make any sense.
I would think that the SNP are looking along the lines or the Irish millitary. The first thing they would want is the transfer of the Scottish devision to local command to allow the forming of a self defence force with a small naval patrol component for fisheries patrol. Any air component would be again for jurisdiction and fisheries patrol.
FedaykinWhat’s the logic behind carrying them down in pieces, vs. a ferry flight and C-17 delivery of the new ground equipment?
Matt
Its expensive and heavy on resources to ferry them down south.
Until recently the RAF would ferry replacement F.3 down via Spain if I remember correctly. It required the support of tankers and Nimrod (in case they ditched) making it a logistical knightmare.
Taking the aircraft apart and flying it down on a C17 is far easier.
Have a look at the link:
FedaykinOne occasionaly reads about drowning of a ferry or a “Passenger-Ship” due to a storm or typhoon, however such news tend to be very rare for military ships.
Is there a special reason for that. The military ships tend to be big and heavy, but is this the sole reason for their being relatively safe, or a safety-factor against storms is incorporated in their designs.
One more question, in the event of a storm, will a submarine be more a safe than a surface vessel.
I would think yes but I’m no expert in the matter:D I think a Submarine would be safer submerged in a storm.
I do remember a rather long part of the film Das Boot (one of my three favorite WWII fils alongside the Battle of the River Plate and The Dam Busters.) where U96 rides out a storm underwater.
FedaykinInteresting subject.
But we can go older then the ETPS Harvard…
The BBMF aircraft are technically serving types with the RAF and the Spitfire MKIIa P7350 rolled off the line in 1940.
Can anyone go older then that?
FedaykinWell thats good they still be flying sad we cant fly on them anymore 🙁 I blame the EU
james
I don’t think they will stop flying, they just can’t be used for passenger flying.
FedaykinIt beggers belief!
Back to square one…:(
Maybe the USAF should no longer bother with this air to air refueling melarky because the powers that be certainly seem to be intent on stopping anything being purchased.
FedaykinFrom Aviation Week….
Congressional auditors have sustained a bid protest by Boeing over the U.S. Air Force’s award to a Northrop Grumman-EADS team over the KC-45A aerial refueling tanker.
“Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman,” the Government Accountability Office said. “We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision.”
GAO also said its decision “should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft.”
WOA!
This is going to cause a Sh*t storm! Boeing supporters are going to be very happy and frankly every European nation that deals with the American defence sector needs to review that relationship.
FedaykinFrom Aviation Week…
Another euro-built transport for the U.S. (aside from the KC-45, VH-71, UH-72, HU-25, various Coast Guard Eurocopters and Agusta helicopters…not to mention the older T-45, T-6, C-23s, Harriers..)
And how many C-17s has NATO bought? :rolleyes:
Yep and it was the best for the job in a competition between two European types.
Also don’t forget that there is still a massive defence trade imbalance between Europe and America even after the list you have wheeled out. The fact is European nations over the years and now buy for more defence equipent off America then the other way round.
FedaykinIt was the Swift cockpit returning to Boscombe Down ;).
John.
There we go then:D
Thanks
Looked like a fairly large thing to lug behind that discovery.
FedaykinSo they do carry and use video cameras on the Bears then, even though so many posters previously insisted they didnt when people questioned why Russia didnt release the video of alleged American ‘buckaroo’ fighter pilots dangerously racing around the Bears a few months ago.
Nah I remember this, the cameras belong to the camera crew along for the trip from Russian TV, it was all about the restart of strategic patrols.
FedaykinAh well that explains something!
I passed what I think was the middle cockpit being towed by a Silver Land Rover Discovery near Oxford last Sunday evening.:p
Out of curiosity what is it … a bit embarrasing as many years ago I was a Wing aircraft recognition champion in my ATC days … my gut feeling was a Canadian CF100 but that doesn’t make much sense to my mind as the nose is a bit narrow and I’m sure the intakes are wrong.
Help!
FedaykinI know slightly off subject but it reminds me of the situation that faced the EP3A that had to land on Hanan when it bumped into an F8 Finback a few years back.
The destruct mechanism for the sensative electronics then was lob over the side or an axe!
Apparently it only helped so far as the Chinese still had a field day looking at all the sensative avionics they couldn’t get at. Sad to say but the Chinese probably regarded it worth the loss of a pilot and fighter.
FedaykinWhilst nothing is impossible if you sink enough money its probably beyond restoration to flight.
The next question is it viable for restoration to static? Well whilst the Vampire is nice thats a big question.
I think it would make a nice cockpit project but that would be a shame considering it appears to be complete.
Fedaykinwhere i said that they shouldnot do independent development but they will only pay for license when they cannot copy.
Sending person to Space is for those who had mastered everything else. I does not make sense when other critical needs are left for decades.
It does not make sense to have two fourthe generations fighters at same time when they have pretty much similar role. If some one else make mistake in 70-80s there is no point in repeating it.
China want thousands of airlines but they could have got licenses of Tupolev/Illysian in late 80s and by now they would have been in second genertion manufacturing by themselevs. Now they are three decades behind by taking a wrong turn. and China does not gain anything from A-320 license when it is under Airbus control thats why they have separate 150 passenger project.
Bringing Machine tools issue is critical otherwise People start claiming that J-11 quality is better than 1980s Su-27SK.
The main point is China will only buy licenses when It cannot copy or most of time starting believing on themselves just look what happened to helicopters/advance trainer/transports and i have no doubt the same will happen to Civilain airline production.
Waw?:confused:
Look I’m going to just copy my advice from my previous post as it doesn’t seem to of sunk home:
Finally Star49 I have some advice:
Please Please Please! can you stop using the “Quote” option for every single line of someones post you don’t like! Reading your posts are enough to give anyone a headache You don’t need to rebuke every point line by line. Its difficult to follow and frankly after a while I don’t bother reading your posts. I’m sure you have a good point to make but it gets swamped under the single line quotes. What you need to do is use one block quote at the beginning of you post so we know who’s post your talking about then write one or two paragraphs clearly to explain your point.
Also can you stop google searching random news reports to proove you point it drags the thread away from the main issue as we start having to read obscure news items about machine tools!
Maybe if I post it a few times it will sink in!:rolleyes:
Sign In
