100 is certified.

This to be done in about a third of the time it would take in house Ford and probably at a third of the cost…and the killer, it had to come down the line at Frankfurt.

The issue for Tickford was that the Focus was one of the early cars to be designed down to the wire and developed and tested to death. It was brilliant, but it meant anything we wanted to do on loadings and performance would impact the existing component’s design life. The clever bit was to over engineer the package just the right amount…in lieu of rig testing and driving thousands of test miles. There were no recalls to my knowledge.

Ah yes….

See this fundamental of any programme:

We want you to ignore that and deliver a better product quicker and cheaper – now get to it.

Well used to it!

So the basic line model didn’t have a centre tunnel for a drive shaft then?

Notable were the RS200.

:drools:

…and the one I am most proud to have been part of, my swansong before retirement, the RS Focus. Here testing the proto in Spain.

So, I can’t not ask your opinion on the obvious question… should it have been 4WD?

As well as trolling and abusing the 66 dissenters they now want then deselected.

That should not be the case.

Nor should it be the case that any party be allowed to impose the whip on decisions of such magnitude. The Nuremberg trials clearly established that anyone has a duty to their own moral compass before their country – yet it would appear our political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) are very much against this.

Their hypocrisy would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

I think a lot of it boils down to the fact, that Cameron was desperate to show our European allies, that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with them. Rather than having a long term policy.

They are elected to do what is best for the country, not get involved in a military pissing contest or macho-ism.

Those politicians who argued along the lines of “everyone else is doing it, some of them are even our buddies, so we should too or be left behind” are beneath contempt and are not fit for public office. Its a bloody lemming mentality.

The decision to go to war (which should always be a free vote – and that should be enshrined in law) is one that needs to be judged on its impact on us, not on the basis of what others are doing.

As per usual, westminster refuses to grasp the nettle.

In order to really sort this problem, there will need to be troops on the ground for a sustained period of time, until there are stable governments in Iraq, Syria and probably a new Kurdish state – all of which will have to be capable of policing within their countries to a reasonable degree.

That could require 20 or 30 years of commitment.

A few air strikes are not going to cut it. Jeremy Corbyn was completely correct – the motion will not help matters one bit and the public aren’t willing to pay in money and lives the cost of troops on the ground.

If you put in the lid of your cynicism, you wouldn’t have forgotten the SAAB, Eurofighter examples .

? The Saab approach is clearly listed in my post!

Nor would you have ignored that all but L-M did decouple the FCS from mission software.

As far as I am aware, Eurofighter, Boeing and Dassault have not got separate flight and mission software – its all interlinked meaning mission has to be verified for zero effect on flight.

Doesn’t speed up weapon integration, IDAS integration (which needs to be integrated), or threat libraries.

Are you for real?

Do you have any idea about how slow building DAL A, B or C code is? Even D is bloody problematic.

But noooo, I’m sure that there is an easier way to write millions of line of code if you don’t take that daft “Western” approach.

That is the statement of someone who has no idea of the complexity of verification required!

Millions of lines of code through DAL A-D verification versus millions of lines of code through DAL E… i.e. no verification.

I wonder which is easier and quicker…. hmmm. :stupid:

A simple comparison of approximately the same engines:
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/68000/?pid=693816

1) Engine AL-41F1 (it is the product 117 is now placed on the PAK-FA) – weight 1380 kg thrust without afterburner 8800 kgf thrust-total 6.38

2) The engine Pratt & Whitney F135 (used on the F-35) – the mass of 1701 kg thrust without afterburner 12700 kg, total thrust-7.47

An utterly worthless comparison.

Unless both aircraft intend to somehow dogfight at static sea-level conditions….