HammerHappy you enjoyed it, how readable was the babel fish translation? The depth charges apparently are Mk9 models. This is to be confirmed, though. Yes Wanshan those MM40s apparently are being evaluated for their suitability on the T.22 the other Brazilian escorts the Inhauma-class Corvettes and Niteroi-class frigates already use the MM40.
HammerI sure can’t tell if it’s real or fake, but… it does look great! 😀
Let’s hope it’s for real! 🙂 😎
Regards,
Hammer
Hammer“ThunderStar”, taking a lead from the Lockheed and Republic fighterplane histories… :diablo:
Regards,
Hammer
HammerAirbus Tanker “Mk.3”
Just wondering…. what would the benefit be (if any) of switching the new A-350 for the A-330 as the basis from the EADS tanker product?
Regards
Hammer
HammerThe Northrop A-9A program had a turboprop powered concept version too.
Would this be it? 😉
Regards
Hammer
HammerThere was also the aborted Piper Enforcer program, a beefed up Mustang powered by the British Dart turboprop…
http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/101-200/walk170_Piper%20Enforcer/walk170.htm
Hammer[QUOTE=Flogger]I do not think Japan is very different to Brazil, Brazil does not build 100% indigineous brazilian aircraft, Embraer leads the programs but is not able to build 100% Brazilian aircraft in fact Brazil and Japan are in the same level but Japan has something that Brazil lacks jet engines.[/QUOTE=Flogger]
I beg do differ (I always wante to write this phrase… 😉 ) my friend.
The aerospace business has two sides to it, one technical the other business/marketing… Once you create the product you have to be able to determine the optimum size, pax carried, MTOW, fuselage width, engine to be used, etc. A plane may turn out to be a major failure if one or more of these key items is ill selected. A company may develop a technicaly flawless airplane and still fail to turn it into a commercial success. The only embraer aircraft absolutely tailored to exclusive Brazilian needs was the original Bandeirante. Every other aircraft has been developed with the world market in sight. The Brasilia, the ERJs and the new E170 family. although you are correct in pointing out that many of todays aircraft programs are multinational there’s three cases that are very different to me.
a) Japanese involvement in the 787: a specific component or stucture is handed to a 3rd party for assembly and detail development. The 3rd party acts in a limited creativity function where it’s ability to obtain financing (at low rates) at the same time reducing the finacial exposure of the aircraft designer. If the aircraft is a failure in the market the burden is spread amongst the risk partners. Many times the sellection of the 3rd party draws government support to the aircraft wich presses local airlines to chose this aircraft, boosting early sales.
b) A Eurofighter tipe of agreement: where four different companies get together to develop a single aircraft capable of fulfilling their clients requirement. Every one of teh companies is a co-creator and a BUILDER at the same time. Risk is shared, government support is obtained ad creative tasks are shared.
c) Embraer 170 is the flip side of “a” one company understand the market requirements, talks in depth to clients, proposes optional configurations, selects the major risk sharing partners drafts the detailed project, establishes and calculates costs and weights and hands out sub-assemblies to be further deveoped by the 3rd party companies. This company has alone the reigns to direct any and every new direction the program will take in the future, what derivatives will be produced next. This is the company that could build the complete project if only it had any interest to do so… this is where you plant the seeds to be able to create new products in the future, definetly not in the sub assembly business…
Please I dont mean to start a Brazil x Japan thread here. It is just that being in Brazil I know our examples better than other cases. 🙂
I must admit that we do lack a engine producing company in Brazil and tha it may be neede in the future, I hope the figure a way around this severe national technical shortcoming. 🙂 [/QUOTE=Flogger]
[QUOTE=Flogger]The T-4 simply is a 100% indigenously designed and build japanese product contrary to the AMX.
The Embraer 170, series has japanese builts parts, in fact is a composite of several manufactures that is assambled in Brazil but is not a 100% indigenously built and designed Brazilian product.
What Brazil is ahead of Japan is the fact that Embraer leads the program specifications despite many suppliers are American, Spanish, Chilean, British Japanese, and now even Chinese.
The P-X and C-X as many japanese products have being built to assure the Japanese know how and commercial profitability in future times.
The Japanese 35% participation is quit high for the Boeing 787 and 21% for the Boeing 777 is comparable to the brazilan participation in the Embraer array of products.
[/QUOTE=Flogger]
Except that we hold the intectual property on the products and Japanese companies dont
Embraer products are global products, but still are not 100% brazilian products.
But now no nation can build big aircraft without partners.Brazil enjoys great advantages as the leader of the program and is very likely that nations like China or Japan will struggle to achieve the Brazilian success going alone but if China and Japan join forces the Japanese know how will multiply the Chinese low costs and know how and in that Brazil can not compete unless either joins them as has done or creates a large market in Latin America for the Embraer products and continue having American and European suppliers to penetrate the EU and US markets as has done with great success due to the fact that buying Embraer means buying american or European in one way or other
HammerWas the Wyvern a fighter or a strike aircraft? The only other turboprop attack plane I can think of (that was actualy used in combat ) is the Pucara…….
Embraer Tucanos have been used to my knowledge in Colombia, Angola and possibly Peru…
Regards
Hammer
HammerA) they are currently making several aircraft parts for Boeing`s 777s, 787, 767.
Being able to produce a limited component is very different from designing a complete airplane… 😉 After all who designs the parts that the japanese are building for Boeing? I think it´s the americans… the Japanese companies surely are limited do detailing the subassembies, no more than that…
B) the C-x and P-x will have japanese designed jet engine, commercial components and will share common parts in avionics, wing and tail planes, it is due to fly by 2007 the Japanese will purchase 44 C-x and 100 P-x a large number that justifies their development.
Anyway, these numbers are very small to justify the creation of a ongoing production line… Costs may become unbearable leter on… 🙁 All over the world companies pair up in order to extend initial orders and reduce development costs… Im sure the Japanese industries know it too, they just accept that the government (taxpayers) are bound to pay for this gross ineficiency.. I’m happy I’m not a Japanese taxpayer.. 😉
C)the MJ will be a 70-90 seats aircraft competing directly with the Embraer 190 and Bombardier RJs, since Japan will have so much aircraft technology available the aircraft will be really indigenous due to the experience gained in the C-X and P-X programs, it is due to fly by 2009.
So the MJ will come to the market years after the Embraers 170-175-190-195, also way after the proposed Bombardier C-Series… what´s the point? Joining a very competitive market when you effectively have no tradition as a leading supplier to that market and entering after everyone else has flooded it with their products… Again waste of money… And aparently lack of long term strategy and vision… But that´s just my idea… 😉
The goal of the Japanese is create an aircraft industry capable to be in the forefront of aircraft design.
Its a good goal, I just don’t see them preparing to realise this vision…
Regards,
Hammer
HammerPlease allow me to return the subject of this thread to the japanese P-X C-X aircraft.
1) If the demand for the C-X is under 50 units by the JSDF how come they were able to commit to it´s launch especially since there are several aircraft in service or close to in the current world market? It does seem to be a waste of public money!
2) What is the commonality between the C-X and the P-X if any? They seem too far away to be anyway connected
3) Some time ago there was talk of using the current P-3 fuselages has this been dropped?
4) It seems to me that neither of these two projects is idealy suited to be developed into a civilian regional/small trunk airliner… Do they intend to use only the technology from this programs and not any structural component?
5) How long will it take for the japanese to ammend their constitution in order to turn their aircraft concepts into economicaly viable proposals?
6) the last four-engined light airliner to join the market was the BAe 146, it didn’t turn out to be a trend setter or a sales hit, why would a P-X regional do any better?
Regards,
Hammer
Hammergood point.
That’s a big disavantage for the F-16.The su-27 can’t refuel inflight neigther. it’s not a big deal for this enormous plane though.
I think, it will depend on the upgrade package that comes with the mirage.
It´s true the Su-27 ofered dont have IFR probes but since they are intended as temporary aircraft the next main fighter will have to have this capability
The F-16 package offered in the now canceled F-X bid included two KC-135… But the used machines from the Netherlands and Belgium don’t offer tankers in their proposals.
Regards,
Hammer
HammerWell, there are some worse examples… Kingdom of Tonga, Maledives, now even Ivory Coast 😀
Funny, how could such a large country with powerful economy field such small air force.. Compare that to Singapore, for example..
It´s simple: no evident enemies around… that way the military funding is dedicated amost entirely to paying salaries and pensions…
Given the option of a pay raise or a new main fighter force the raise will always be the prefered choice.
Regards,
Hammer
HammerCurrently there seem to be a series of conflicting lines of thought in the Brazilian AF:
Pro-Gripen: Engineers mostly, thrilled by the high-tech systems inbeded in the Swedish fighter
Pro-Su-35: Mostly current and ex-fighter jocks swept by the shere horse-power and range of modern weapon
Pro-F-16: Mostly logistics people that have come to depend on the reliability of the US post-sale support structure. Too them any other options is “way too risky” and “different from the system what we are used to”… They don´care much about munitions availability or political embargos
Pro Mirage: Those who think flying regularly to France (think “champagne”…) is a much better than having to go to Siberia, Sweden or Fort Worth….
Pro-Embraer: Mostly politics concerned with their re-election campain funding… think that probably the FX should be newbuild Super Tucano or Embraer 170s armed with BVR missiles 🙁
The greatest problem is that most of them have serious doubts the fighters will ever be put to military use in their lifetime…
Regards
Hammer
HammerExcuse me if this has been posted here before, it sounds interesting
http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i040420a/i040420a.html
VIRGINIA (20 Apr 2004) — The Navy is offering 25 decommissioned ships, including four aircraft carriers, to coastal states interested in turning them into artificial reefs.One of the carriers is the Oriskany, a combat veteran of Korea and Vietnam, which could be sunk as early as this summer in the Gulf of Mexico. Plans call for it to come to rest in 211 feet of water, 22 miles offshore from Pensacola, Fla. The 888-foot, 30,800- ton carrier would be the largest vessel ever purposely sunk in the United States.
The three other flattops are the Forrestal, Independence and Constellation. The “Connie” was decommissioned last August after playing a key role in the war in Iraq.
By making the offer, the Navy is looking to reduce the size of its inactive ship inventory. The reef program is an alternative to the more costly plan to cut them up for scrap
For states, the ships could have appeal as reefs that would lure marine life * as well as recreational divers and fishermen.
As attractive as an aircraft carrier reef might sound to local dive and tourist industries, Virginia likely won’t have one because of the wide and relatively shallow continental shelf off its shore, said Mike Meier, who coordinates artificial reef projects for the Virginia Marine Research Commission.
A carrier would have to be sunk in at least 200 feet of water. That doesn’t show up until 50 miles off Virginia’s shore, a bit too far to make such a project profitable for dive boats, he said. “A carrier just won’t cut it,” he said.
Meier might like to have some of the Navy’s smaller ships and says he would take all the worn-out subway cars anyone cares to give.
Artificial reefs throughout U.S. waters have flourished in recent years, using everything from 80 of the Army’s old M-60 tanks, sunk in the Gulf of Mexico, to a Boeing 737 aircraft, sunk off Miami.
Virginia, like North Carolina, already uses railroad box cars, Navy Liberty ships, barges, military aircraft and some pre formed concrete structures, shaped like igloos, for artificial reefs. They are in the Chesapeake Bay and in the Atlantic, some as close as eight miles from shore off Chincoteague and Parramore Island on Virginia’s Eastern Shore.
Neither state has anything like what’s on the Navy’s newest list, which, in addition to the aircraft carriers, includes 11 destroyers, five cruisers, two frigates, a dock landing ship, a patrol gunboat and the 530-foot long combat stores ship San Diego.
These are ships that didn’t make the cut for foreign military sales or any other form of disposal.
Congress has set a deadline of 2006 for the disposal of more than 70 obsolete ships moored in the middle of the James River, off Fort Eustis in Newport News. An earlier plan to cut up as many as 13 of the ships in the United Kingdom has stalled because of environmental challenges.
Environmental concerns continue to be a stumbling block to the program. Virginia won’t accept any ships until the Environmental Protection Agency streamlines the process, Mier said.
Even Florida, which is just months away from taking ownership of the Oriskany, is exercising caution because of the uncertainties with environmental rules and the high cost of getting the carrier ready for sinking.
The EPA has yet to come out with firm standards about how the Navy ships are to be cleaned, said John Dodrill, who coordinates Florida’s artificial reef program for the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Florida, which has more than 2,000 artificial reefs * 450 of them ships * doesn’t intend to accept the title to the Oriskany until the EPA gives its blessing and until the Navy tows the ship to the site and sinks it, Dodrill said.
The last large military ship sunk was the 510-foot dock landing ship Spiegel Grove in May 2002 off Key Largo, Fla. It was a near disaster.
A local tourist development group, aided by dive boat charter companies that took out bank loans for the project, raised $1.6 million.
When the ship refused to sink * its stern was on the bottom but its bow trapped air and arched out of the water * another $300,000 had to be raised to finish the job. It came to rest on its side, not its bottom.
Another reef project, using the former 520-foot missile tracking ship Vandenberg * a member of the James River “Ghost Fleet” * has been delayed for nearly seven years while sponsors try to raise as much as $2 million to sink it off Key West, Dodrill said.
With such costs rising, Dodrill said the U.S. Transportation Department’s Maritime Administration is proposing grant funding to clean some vessels.
“If it’s cheaper to scrap a ship, they will do it,” he said. “But if they can provide the ship to a local government equal to or less than the cost of scrapping it, they will.”
That apparently is what the Navy has decided with the Oriskany. Following 25 years of service, it was decommissioned in 1975, stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in 1989 and sold for scrap in 1995. The contractor defaulted.
The ship was repossessed by the Navy and towed to the Beaumont Reserve Fleet in Texas, where more than 70 people, working nearly around-the-clock, are trying to get it ready for sinking, Dodrill said.
“Today the Navy estimates it will cost in excess of $4 million to scrap it, so if they put as little as $2.1 million to $2.8 million into the ship to get it ready to reef, it is a money-saving option for them,” Dodrill said.
Plans call for the Oriskany’s flight deck to be just 100 feet below the surface, with its steel superstructure rising to within 50 feet of the surface. The ship’s interior will be closed to divers for safety reasons.
“We don’t want anyone penetrating the interior of the ship below the main deck and into the hangar bay,” Dodrill said. Still at issue is how the Navy plans to sink the big carrier.
The Japanese and American carrier war in the Pacific during World War II showed that it takes a lot to sink these ships, Dodrill said. “The Navy builds its ships to avoid sinking.”
Hammerrussian AF su-27 ?
Correct, ex-Russian AF. The interest I refer to comes from the people in the selection dept of the Brazilian AF (COPAC).
Regards,
Hammer
Sign In
