Hi guys! Here`s some notes on your comments.

Actually I`ve been aboard the south African Meko 200SANs and got mixed feelings from their powerplant arrangement… 1st of all the single GT, in Brazil we have a popular saying tha says “he who has just one unit of something, in reality has none”… (there is no back-up!) Second, the Waterjet, when activated creates a WALL of water behind the frigate, acfcording to some Brazilian Navy sources, when this happens the radar echo of the ship spikes severely undermining the stealth design principle behind it… On the positive side I do really apreciate the funnels being totaly removed and substituted by wet exaust neat the ships water line.

I`m certainly aware about the Mistral`s pods, but in my earlier question I was considering mostly frigates, corvettes, destroiers and cruisers, and not large amphibious and logistics types……

Regards!

Hammer

So I assume this bilboard’s message alone answers a lot of our questions here! 😉

Regards,

HAmmer

Hi Guys!

Answering a couple of doubts expressed by you in here:

http://www.alide.com.br/joomla/index.php/capa/75-extra/717-alide-entrevista-cesar-silva-akaer

In the 26 sept 2009 interview Mr. Cesar Silva (AKAER) gave me he says

a) Akaer is not a manufacruring operation they are an engineering services (outsourcing) company. Assembly is the task of the other T1 companies (Such as Inbra)

b) The Gripen Demo wing is a quick fix productm nade to prove the aerodynamics and the efectiveness of the new landing gear retraction solution as well as the larger fuel tanks. Rhis wing is not guaranteed to be able to last 30+ years nor it is the lightest possible safe structure in that wing shape.

c) Saab is responsible for the aerodynamic aspects and Akaer (the engineeering services company, has basicly to devise the lightest, strongest and easiest structure possible inside the required external shape. Complex work, but surely not outside the companies skills.

d) Mr. Cesar Silva frankly cites the development of the new Gripen NG wing as the most interesting and demanding job for them to be had inside the partnership with Saab.

Regards,

Hammer

Hi guys,

I have absolutely no clue about the inner workings of the US military purchase processes and I don’t know how much freedom do USAF administrators have in running their selection processes, but, at least here in Brazil, the fine print to keep out guys like the US Aerospace participant would have to be written into the RFP text itself.

Something like: “only companies with a proven track record selling over a billion US dollar a year to the US Armed Forces can submit bids for KC-X”

If the FAB (in our case) did not have the foresight to include any kind of minimum size/personel number/revenue requirement ANYONE can come in and throw their proposal into the fray. Also, over here the place of delivery, usually is the front desk of the base/office building as to not give the participant this potential “involuntary delay” claim that certainly would be used against the Air Force in a court of law.

So, going against what some have said here from my Brazilian biased perspective US Aerospace were certainly victim to a damaging “preemptive move” by the Air Force clerks and their rights (at least to compete) certainly were breached this time around. This is one nasty situation and to me it does not bode well for the quick happy conclusion of this deal.

Comments

Hammer

Also, once we stopped operating our Mirage III some few years ago there was a general expectation that the surviving airframes, engines and spares might be picked up by the PAF and this did not occur, any reason why not?

Regards

Hammer

Lavi was not embargo-free (it had a very high proportion of US equipment), & it was largely US-funded. The argument there was that the USA was subsidising a competitor to US aircraft. Some politically influential American firms, unions, & congressmen with aircraft factories in their districts, were unhappy about that.

An aircraft with no US content would be very different.

Hi Swerve, I meant the NEW multinational fighter, not the Lavi, would be “embargo-free”… On the rest of your comment I think it goes well beyond us domestic pork-barrel politics Once Lavi was built what wpould keep the Israelis from making a de-USified version for China (which at the rime has no access to modern fighters or recent fighter tech!) or some other “rogue” nation? The Kkir was that exactly a French fighter fuselage packed with a new US J-79… If they did it once this direction what would keep them doing it again in the other? Catch my drift?

As I pointed out before the whole US policy for exporting fighters is about “US government control”, never “private corporate profits”:

a) can we NOT sell these guys the modern fighter? (remeber Venezuelan F-16s)
b) if we sell them the fighter and we cut support will these fighters fall immediately in desrepair and stop being a regional menace to us or to our new allies?
c) If we don’t sell these fighters now can they buy them from the Russians, Chinese, French, Swedes or from EADS? Is so can we then offer to sell (or even give it away) so these non-US fighter manufacturing plants may risk having to close down for lack of orders? Rhe monopoly of fighter aircraft production is a truly fascinating concept to the Americans. 😉

Do I make any sense?

Regards,

Hammer