nhamptonIgnorance is a temporary condition that can be cured by education, but stupidity is forever. I suspect that I am like others who come to the site to enjoy insightful posts and be amused by the ramblings of fools. Fortunately, most fools die a quick cyber death.
10,297 posts? Not long?
nhamptonActions always speak louder than words. Many people blindly accept whatever position is pumped out by a smiling politician or media source without challenge. Make up your mind based on true actions instead of what some agenda-driven politico or media source says.
An example is the week old scandal of the global warning data being falsified by researchers at the University of East Anglia. For a decade, the “true believers” of the GW movement have used falsified data to bolster their position that western lifestyle is the cause of GW. The public gobbled up that horsecr@p without question.
So the question is…Do Americans really cause all the suffering in the world? Or is that position also horsecr@p of cherry-picked information by those with an agenda?
I suspect a few of us here know the answer to your question. Those for whom the message is intended clearly do not. I have a lot of respect for what you write both here and elsewhere. That said I do not understand why you would continue to have discourse with trolls and fools. Clearly you will change no minds here.
nhamptonHmmm, maybe you should finally start asking WHY it’s so fashionable and how did you manage to convert your once well-established image of a well respected nation to an image of a bunch of clowns who are not to be trusted even by their own allies. Hey, don’t say it’s all about tinfoil hats, there’s something deeper and much more profound..
Need I say more Sferrin?
nhamptonIf, we had a dollar for everytime the Rafale was suppose to win a contest you would be a rich man! Regardless, that is not to say the Rafale would not be a good choice for Brazil. Just that its not over til its over.;)
I got to disagree with you here. The SH is not going to win for the ismmple fact that its from the US. Lula is not a Yankee fan.
nhamptonIt would be interesting to hear what estimates you are refering to about Meteor being so more costly than AIM-120D that its out of Indias reach while D wouldnt. The numbers I have posted earlier in this thread is not much lower than the ones heard about Meteor at ~1M. AIM-120D is an existing missile modernised with new electronics.
“The AIM-120D will deliver improved performance
from GPS-aided navigation, a two way data link capability
that will enhance aircrew survivability, improved network compatibility,
and incorporate new guidance software that will improve the AMRAAM’s
kinematic performance”
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-085.pdfMeteor is a spanking brand new missile, the only efficient ramjet AAM available on the market for quite a while probably. Remember also that the prices refered to so far is from the UK deal and that contract could include a payback clause. It is quite common and means that the first costumer pays a high price for the first delivery but is entitled to a part of the prophet from sales to later customers that also gets it cheaper. Even if this is speculations from my side there has to be a way to spread development costs.
But to answer your question, no as you probably understand, I dont know the long term price and I doubt you or anyone else do as it depends on the volumes produced. But I think there is a quite good chance India could get a reasonable price if ordering a substantial number. Remember that UK, France and I think Sweden is quite determent to get Meteror and they do not have some endless defence budgets.
How many BVRAAM options do you want?
Typhoon: AMRAAM, Meteor and Astra would probably be integrated
Gripen NG: AMRAAM, Meteor and probably Astra. Derby and Mica has also been mentioned.
Rafale: Mica, Meteor and probably Astra.
SH and SV: AMRAAM and possibly Astra but would depend on US policy.
Mig-35: Russian BVRAAM’s and probably Astra.All in all quite an unusally wide array, with the possible exeption of the US fighters.
Three points. AIM-120D is very much a fairly new missile. Second what makes you think that AMRAAM will not be further developed when Meteor is eventually fielded? Last I would bee willing to bet that far more AMRAAM family missiles will be bought than Meteor. AMRAAM will have a price advantage due to economy of scale.
nhamptonI may not be the best informed poster here, but let’s try:
WVR – Magic, RedTop, MICA, ASRAAM, IRIS-T
BVR – Meteor, MICA, Super530, SkyFlash, Aspide
ARM – ARMIGER, ALARM, Martel
ASM – NSM, RBS-15, Rb05, MM40 Exocet, AS.34 Kormoran, BAe Sea Eagle, Rb12 Penguin
PGM – sh1tload…
LRAGM – Taurus KEPD350, NSM, SCALP EG (StormShadow), ASMP, DWS39 (similar to JSOW)Runway penetrators – Durandal, JP233, MW-1, Apache
Anti-armor – PARS 3 LR, Brimstone, HOT
Lots of variety but not too many of them very good.
nhamptonLOL pfcem.
Here are data for KC-767, KC-767AT and KC-135.Official Boeing KC-767 product sheet for Italy
Are all those incorrect, too??
How come I never have any good data?? đ
Too bad you dont have good data. Just more red herrings. The fact is the KC-767AT carries a more use able fuel than the KC-135. What I would suggest you do Sodaboy is go look up the amount of fuel the KC-767AT and KC-135 can offload after flying 1500 miles. Go find out and report back to the group which plane has more fuel remaining that can be offloaded. Do something useful.:D:D Oh and do try to find a better source than Wikipedia next time. You do want to be taken seriously don’t you?:o:o
nhamptonWell, that news to me. As I can’t recall hearing anything about Kuwait being interested in F-16’s. Really, I would think the Typhoon would be a better match for tiny Kuwait.
Last I heard the French were pushing the Rafale hard to the Kuwaiti’s.
Typhoons and Rafales are bad choices because of cost.
nhamptonWell, what else will be available in another 10 plus years??:rolleyes:
Lots of Russian, Chinese, and European 4th gen fighters. I would not be surprised if the SH line was still up and running.
The question is why would you buy them. Well many Arab states would buy Typhoon because the Israel lobby may not let the US sell F-35s and they are not American. Look at Brasil. Clearly the SH provides the most bang for the buck and it may yet win but the Brasilians have a problem with it being American. Some smaller non aligned nations may want to go low cost and buy Gripen. then there are the nations that would like F-35s but canot get production slots soon enough. Clearly many F-35s will be sold but there will be room for other aircraft as well.
nhamptonWell, I don’t think Jordan has the money for new F-16’s and Kuwait has been discussing Rafales. So, maybe Oman???
Iraq isnt buying anything more than a Piper Cub for a while yet. My bet is that it’s Kuwait. I’m just surprised that they did not go for SHs instead.
nhampton1. the osprey isn’t an aircraft
2. EADS/NG wasn’t able to submit new evidencethey didn’t rule it couldn’t refuel, they ruled they didn’t prove it to their satisfaction
1. It wasn’t just the Osprey but regardless your point is moot. It could not refuel all aircraft in inventory. Very simple. No wiggle room. Clearly an army of lawyers, aviation experts and procurement specialists disagree with you.
In addition, we found that the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate
the capability of Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft to initiate
emergency breakaway procedures, consistent with current Air Force
procedures, with respect to a current fixed-wing, tanker-compatible Air
Force aircraft.
During the procurement, the Air Force twice informed
Northrop Grumman that the proposed maximum operating velocity for that
firm’s proposed aircraft would not be sufficient under current Air
Force procedures to achieve overrun speeds for various Air Force
aircraft.
It was not just about the Osprey. In fact there is no mention of it in the GAO testimony. The Air Force informed EADS that the proposed max velocity was insufficient.
2. How many chances do you get? Do you wait until the GAO rules against you so that you can submit new evidence. That is just laughable.
Clearly EADS did not have the aircraft that best met the original RFP. We shall see what round 2 brings but if its at all like what the draft of it is then I would say that EADS does not have the tanker that best suits the air force’s needs.
nhamptonWhich, country are they referring too? Iraq???
DUBAI – November 19, 2009: Lockheed Martin has strong hopes of clinching a sale of the F-16 fighter with an undisclosed Arab country in the near future, said Rick Groesch, regional vice president for the Middle East.
âWe have very, very good prospects of selling more in the region,â Groesch told journalists Nov.17 at the air show here. The deal, which could be sealed by the end of the year, would be for the block 50 version of the F-16 aircraft, he said.
The mystery buyer is not Egypt, where Lockheed is in detailed negotiations for a sale.
Iraq, Oman and Jordan are seen as potential buyers, a French aerospace executive said.
A Lockheed team is currently in Egypt for âfinal discussionsâ for a prospective purchase of 24 F-16s, Groesch said. The U.S. Congress has cleared the way for a sale with a notification and the present talks were aimed at finalizing contract details.
Lockheed sees potential sales of 100 to 200 F-16s around the world until the F-35 becomes available for export. That market estimate excludes the Indian competition for 126 fighters. As part of the Indian tender process, Indian officials will be invited to the U.S. to see live weapons firing by the F-16 at a number of sites in the last week of January and first week of February.
A production backlog of 76 F-16s is expected is expected to the line busy until 2012. Countries which have bought the aircraft in the past couple of years include Greece with 30 units, Pakistan (18), Morocco (24) and Turkey (30).
A number of countries are upgrading their F-16s to the more capable block 50/52 version, a modernization program expected to keep the aircraft in service to 2040, Groesch said.
In the Indian tender, the contenders are Boeingâs F/A-18 E/F, Dassault Aviationâs Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16, MiG 35 and Saab Gripen NG.
I’m guessing it’s Oman, Jordan or Kuwait. I am not too sure about the Iraqis.
nhamptonThe Airbus did meet the KPP’s, how is pointing that out Trollish behaviour?
It most certainly did not. It was not able to refuel all aircraft in the air force inventory and
we found that the record did not show that the Air Force
reasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft could
refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker-compatible aircraft
using current Air Force procedures, as was required by the
solicitation.
EADS was not able to provide a plan for the air force to perform depot level maintenance on the aircraft.
Fifth, GAO found that the Air Force improperly accepted Northrop
Grumman’s proposal, even though that firm took exception to a material
solicitation requirement. Specifically, the solicitation required
offerors to plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic
depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-
rate production aircraft. Northrop Grumman was informed several times
by the Air Force that the firm had not committed to the required 2-year
timeframe, but Northrop Grumman refused to commit to the required
schedule.
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08991t.html
I would suggest you at least read the GAO’s testimony to Congress or better yet read the findings itslef which can be found at http://www.gao.gov
Clearly most here have not so many come off as either ignorant or trollish.
nhamptonI take the term Troll seriously and its not something I see myself as.
If you don’t like it stop calling everyone who has a different opinion Airbus Kool Aid drinkers and dragging the thread back to points you have made repeatedly.
You have supported the few points of the matrix that show the Frankentanker from Boeing in a positive light more then once so you clearly see aspects of it as valid!
But you are being a troll or you clearly did not understand the original RFP and the GAO’s findings. It did not matter which offering was superior in the 9 KPPs to which the entries where judged if that entry did not meet all 9 KPPs. Only if both entries met the all the KPPs was there to be any further evaluation. They where meant to be tie breakers. The fact is the EADS entry miss at least two of the KPPs according to the GAO. They made no judgement on the Boeing entry which according to the selection team met all KPPs. After the GAO report technically the Air Force could have stopped right there and selected the Boeing entry on the basis of it meeting all the KPPs and the EADs entry not meeting all the KPPs. In the interest of fairness this was not done and I find it amusing that people like you are finding fault with the process since it clearly worked in your favor.
This entire fiasco has morphed from an off the shelf, low cost KC-135 replacement to an entirely new procurement fiasco all to keep two players in the bidding. The fact is that every study done by the Air Force indicated a need for a KC-135 replacement and not something else. Frankly if they wanted a new type of logistical support aircraft the Air Force should have done like they did in the old days and go through a development process and once the winner is decided fund an entirely new aircraft built for purpose. If they want a KC-135 replacement then the 767 fits the bill to a t.
nhamptonI am sure the British, Itatlians, and Spanish will buy both F-35B’s (i.e. Navy) and F-35A’s. (i.e. Air Force)
With the F-35A’s (maybe C’s) replacing Tornado’s in RAF Service.
Buying F-35Cs makes the most sense for the UK as their greater range would suit them for Tornado replacement and their ability to be used from carriers would allow them to be used as a swing role. Unfortunately for the RAF that would mean that the F-35Cs would be piloted by FAA types. It would be quite simple. While one carrier is in overhaul, that ship’s airwing would take up the duties that used to be performed by the Tornado. As the carriers rotate in and out of refit the air wings rotate as well. The point that some poeple are trying to make that you cannot use carrier based aircraft in a shore based role due to training issues is ignorance at best.The Marines do it and have been doing it since world war II. Using F-35Cs give you a far more capable platform and allows you to fulfill two roles with fewer planes.
Spain may buy B’s for their light carrier irregardless of their Tiffy buy. Italy will buy both the A and B in large numbers. Which is interesting because in terms of type they will probably have the most advanced Air Force in Europe by 2020. The real question is what does Germany do to replace it’s Torndaos? UCAVs show promise but even in 20 years I just dont think they will be at the point that they can take on that role. Do they just scrap them and try and make the remaining Tiffies into something they are not nor really suited to be? Do they soldier on with their old Tornados like they did with the F-4s? I think the updated Tornado option is the direction they take. F-35s are not in the cards for them.
Sign In
