such trivial parts are hardly worth the effort of special mentioning as they cost pennies. what kind of cost saving do you expect to make from saving on such things?
how about aircraft hydraulics? machined metal components, Commercial off the shelf computer chips, circuit boards, capacitors, resistors, and other electronics parts? Color LCD screens?
You could probably buy these parts at equal or higher quality at a cheaper cost from any number of foreign manufactures in western countries without compromising your defense industry.
When I said non-critical, I was thinking of wire bundles, nut, bolts, standard industry fasteners, low technology machined parts, etc.
I don’t think the US aircraft industry needs a strategic skills in producing wire bundles.
I’d have to disagree with you there. The SH is more than adequate for the USN’s current needs. It’s serving in greater numbers than the F/A-22 ever will and does a better job hauling bombs to the target.
It also saw true active service nearly a decade earlier than the Raptor.
The F-35 maybe stealthy, but it’s also at least 10 years until it even starts to active service.
Until that time, the SH is a great deal for the money.
thats a very short sighted point of view.
its also not just about jobs, but maintaining the ability to make something, as highly skilled and experienced people are key to the success of any nation’s areospace industry.
I don’t think that’s entirely true.
You want to retain the ability to make the most advanced parts. Anything else of a commodity nature or non critical nature, you’re better off farming out.
I don’t think there’s a current US maker of ejector seats, unless Martin-Baker is a subsidiary of a US company.
Especially when the NK variant was in some areas better… as the Tu-4 was better in some areas than the B-29.
Well, that make it sound as if the US was never able to improve the B-29. They did. It’s called the B-50. For political reasons, they changed the designation from B-29D to B-50.
If the Russians were so great at reverse engineering and improving the B-29, why couldn’t they build a copy better than the B-50?
Sorry, but I don’t see copying the B-29 as an amazing feat of Russian enginuity.
I don’t know if that’s such an amazing accomplishment.
It’s far easier to make a copy when you’ve got the original sitting in front of you. Look what the Stormbird guys did with access to a Me-262. New build copies, no problem.
If you are thinking about a D70 vs the D70S, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a used D70 if you trust the seller. There is very little significant difference between the two.
I don’t think that is true for the Canon 300 vs the 350.
Next combat aircraft? How about police helicopters?
The biggest threat to the Saudi are other Saudis. They’ve got radicals crawling all over the place. If they can’t keep the lid on the radicals, you’re going to see the Saudis go the way of Iran.
Nice piece of fiction.
Can’t seem to see much of Pearl Harbor.
The cost item is kind of questionable. You take out the pilot and replace him/her with a lot of computers, software, expensive electronics and comm gear.
1. F-108 Rapier
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/august/i_history.html
2. Rafale
3. F-8 Crusader
4. Gripen
5. F-86 Sabre
6. F-16XL
7. YF-23
8. Su-27 Flanker
9. F-14 Tomcat
10. Su-22
The F-15s day as top dog in the fighter world is clearly passing. The clear advantage it once held over other fighter aircraft is no longer present.
That’s why the USAF wants the F/A-22. The USAF Chief of Staff will be the first person to acknowledge that.
So where does the Rafale stand now?
Is it fully air to groud capable now? Is it as capable as the F-16 in the a2g mission or is it still running on an interim a2g feature set?
As I recall, the Rafale entered service as an air superiority fighter with the other mission capabilities to follow in later upgrades.