Canada – at Canadair, Montreal, Quebec

F-5 production (as the CF-5) and as NF-5 kits for Fokker
F-104 production (as the CF-104)

I forgot about the CF-18, wasn’t it also assembled in Canada? And the CF-101?

its false, not only snecma leads the design , is the major owner with 33%
of the work but design the most important part of this engine, the core!

european pounding parties are only to share annexes works, as conpressors tests, etc… and make press about it for the partner nations etiquette!

😉

I’ve sometimes read that the the central core or hot-section, or whatever you want to call it, of SNECMA’s M88 or perhaps the CFM56 is used as the basis for the SaM146 turbofan, to be used on the Sukhoi Superjet.
Perhaps this is were you are getting confused?:rolleyes:

Just thought some of the old rockers on the forum might find it of interest…aren’t i a silly sausage then 😮 :confused:

Steve, tell ’em who Oz’s Minister for the Environment is… It was a big surprise to me when I heard him been interviewed on the BBC World Service last week, and he could probably come under the heading of ‘old rocker’ for sure! 😉

That list has to be viewed with caution, as it says. However, as you say, it does give an indication of why India appears to get a lot from its spending.

This article gives some indications of the risks of misusing PPPs, describing an infamous example. I think the SIPRI estimates you give are better than the estimate Mr Logan criticises, but SIPRI does not pretend they are able to estimate PPPs specific to military spending. At best, one can attempt to apply PPPs selected from other economic sectors, or do as the IISS does, & apply them only to domestic spending.

Another point to consider when comparing PPP and the operational costs of a countrys’ military – just how efficiently run the military is. How effective are the Russian and Chinese are at managing the limited resources that are provided for their war machines.

A lot of money gets badly sent within many countrys’ military organisations.

Brave pilots had a chance to save themselves

VietNamNet Bridge – Two pilots gave their lives, steering their malfunctioning plane away from a residential area.

It happened in Yen Bai Province where their aircraft crashed during a training session.

In Chuck Yeager’s autobiograpy, he mentioned that in the event of an imminent crash of an aircraft, the pilot(s) are usually too preoccupied with recovering the aircraft to notice what’s lying on the ground below, so be wary of such stories of pilots sacrificing themselves.
How does anyone know what was going on in the cockpit in the moments leading up to the crash anyway?:rolleyes:

$680 billion for infrastructure

Nov 8th 2009, 13:30 by The Economist | WASHINGTON DC

RYAN AVENT, who writes for our economics blog, wonders what would happen “if for one year — just one year — we allocated as much money for infrastructure as we did for defense?:

With that kind of money you could entirely build out a national network of true high-speed rail. One year’s worth of defense spending gets you that. Which makes one wonder: where are all the economists, wringing their hands over cost-benefit analyses of these defense expenditures? Does anyone doubt that the net benefit of $100 billion spent on high-speed rail is easily higher than that for the last $100 billion spent on defense? Have a look at this if you’re unsure.

And while the gains to new investments in infrastructure (and not just in transportation) would be large, it isn’t as though we lack critical needs. What was the cost, human and economic, of the I-35 bridge collapse? Of the Metro crash and resulting limitations on service? Of the Bay Bridge shutdown? And of course, investments in infrastructure constitute positive contributions to the economy, which ultimately strengthen our ability to direct resources toward defense. Aimless defense spending, on the other hand, may well make us poorer and less secure.

Mr Avent’s post has generated some interesting discussion. Matt Yglesias explores “the real point” of the thought experiment:

[I]f we took 10 percent of the defense budget and re-allocated that to infrastructure, we could have a national HSR network in ten years. And we’d still be spending over triple what our nearest rival spends [on defense].

Something worth noting is that for a hegemonic power suffering from slow-but-steady (but very slow) relative decline, wasting money on national security expenditures actually erodes our hegemony. Meaningful U.S.-Chinese security competition is a generation or two away. By that time, money that was spent in 2009 on fighter planes or nuclear submarines or transportation infrastructure in Afghanistan isn’t going to be doing us any good. By contrast, spending money on preschool in 2009 does improve the U.S.-Chinese balance of power in 2049—investment in early childhood education pays enormous dividends, but it takes a long time to turn tiny babies into productive adults. And transportation is just the same. The construction of heavy rail mass transit in Boston, New York, Chicago, and Washington was extremely expensive but has paid consistent dividends for decades and if properly maintained will continue to do so forever.

Mike Konczal suggests a possible “nudge” solution to the problem—creating a line item on Americans’ pay stubs that shows the portion of their tax withholding that is going towards defence spending. (Dedicated taxes for Social Security and Medicare already show up on pay stubs.) That gets closer to the heart of the matter. But American attitudes about defence spending will be very hard to change. The conservative movement in America has done an excellent job of making both tax increases and cuts in defence spending politically toxic. In a widely discussed essay in The New Republic last month, Rich Yeselson argued:

We are living through the Californiafication of America—a country in which the combination of a determined minority and a procedural supermajority legislative requirement makes it impossible to rationally address public policy challenges.

Readers can decide for themselves whether Mr Yeselson’s contention is accurate. Some have suggested that the only way to get broad-based support for any sort of investment in public transportation is to sell the investment as essential for national security. Supporters of that strategy point out that it worked for Eisenhower as an argument for building the Interstate Highway System. Still, colour me sceptical. There’s a reason Mr Avent’s post was a thought experiment. Given current political realities, the reallocation of any significant amount of defence spending towards infrastructure investment seems extremely unlikely. That’s too bad. Consider Mr Yglesias’ closing point:

I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the quote, but someone told me he heard a Chinese official tell him “over the past decade you’ve spent $1 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve spent $1 trillion building the future of China.” I don’t really think we should view that contrast in a paranoid light, but if you do want to take a paranoid view of the American national security situation it makes a lot more sense to worry about that than to worry that someone in a cave might build a bomb.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2009/11/680_billion_for_infrastructure?Fsrc=glvrnwl

I am talking about military, law enforcement and government use. The aircraft you have mentioned are nowhere near being on top, I count only 40+ operators for Boeing 737, 39+ operators for Cessna 172 and 65+ operators for Bell 206 series.

At the same time I record no less than 69+ operators of Alouette III (could be actually as high as 75-80), 75+ operators for C-130/L100 series, 95+ operators for UH-1 and 98+ for the venerable Dakota. Mi-8/Mi-17 tops them all, I am currently counting exactly 111 operators worldwide.

F-16 only has 25 users worldwide, they are designs with far more.. The most widespread fast jet was MiG-21 Fishbed with 61 operators, followed by MiG-17 Fresco with 43, F-5A/E Tiger II with 39 and F-86 Sabre with 38 users.

I don’t think counting the number of countries in possession of a type gives a true idea of just how prolific and widely used a particular type of aircraft is. I’m talking about the aircraft type which collectively flies the greatest number of sorties/flights on any one day. Certainly I would call it draw for first place between the Mi-8/Mi-17 and the Huey, alright, 3rd place perhaps the C-130. The most combat aircraft today is easily the F-16 – almost 5,000 have been built, most of them probably see use today, I’d imagine flying the greatest number of training and combat sorties today.