Funkycartel_1It has to be done and should be called “SUPER Eagle” 😀
Funkycartel_1Those americans have pretty fun. Instead of trying to persuade us to buy their product they accuse us of being incapable to put a screw.
It’s not to worry though, since this is their official policy even in top level. Enforce countries to buy their products but with conditions no one would ever accept and always keep the “self-destruction button” for themselves.
We have discussed this issue so many times in the past but I will once more repeat it. It’s all about money. If we decide to build a European JSF ourselves we ll make it better and probably cheaper than what we buy.
Funkycartel_1Sounds like a bunch of whining to me. If a country only contributes a pitance to the developement of the aircraft then all they are entitled to is a pitance of the workshare. The more I hear the more it sounds like Euros are accustomed to a free ride. The UK wants full technology transference, what does Norway want an assembly line? Either pony up a bigger share of the developement costs or go shake your tin cup somewhere else. If Norway wants to be involved in the high tech stuff then they should say to the US “look this is what we have to offer and it’s better than the stuff you guys build”. Is that what they are doing? Or are they saying “tell us how to make the neat stuff so we can build it for you”?
No it’s not whining. It might be difficult for me to be convinced of what you suggest given the experiance I have of what is happening with projects like Eurofighter, the whole AIRBUS industry, nEUROn, IRIS-T etc. It’s so different and everyone knows from the beginning how to contribute either to the development or to subcontracting.
Those fools thought that US will treat them as they learnt with the European projects.
To be honest I keep my self the right to directly oppose to the contribution of European countries to the JSF because actually the development of such a project in Europe could have been made without those problems. It was only a matter of decision.
And of course money but they give them anyway. I suppose you don’t believe that those fools will improve their position by simply putting more money. Given the usual practice of US to reduce its orders for almost all major projects one would be full to put more in such projects.
Funkycartel_1Gee it couldn’t possibly be because the US has footed 90% of the bill could it? If the Euros assumed this was a corporate welfare program that’s their own fault.
Then why didn’t they ask from the beginning simply for customers not partners…?
Now they have partners (sic: suckers) who -at last – realise that they are only customers.
Thank you sir, we won’t buy.
Funkycartel_1And that statement shows the same lack of understanding the socialist government of Norway has shown. Subcontracting jobs are not “given” away to buy favors, they have to be “won” by having the best price and a product that meets specification. Those groundrules were stated at the beginning of the JSF program (and are codified in US law; Federal Acquisition Regulations). Sad that the Norwegians would rather whine than compete.
Again this is the difference… It has nothing to do with socialist staff as you enjoy to state but with co-opeation or to put another word that you will like more, with business.
I buy your product but you should give me some work to do. As – I suppose – you know how your companies (and europeans too) work when it comes to subcontracting jobs they collect specific parts or assemblies and ask for price from their partners giving from the begining A TARGET PRICE. This is the roof price and everyone that makes a proposal should be at least equal. Now when let’s say the roof price is 100 euros and my offer is 90 you should buy from me even if you can find it with 85. Why? Because finally it is me that I will buy the product not somebody else.
Believe me this procedure is well known among Norvegians, British, Australians, Dutch etc that contribute to the product.
The problem is that LM turned its back to them. If it was as you say that it would have been a nice competion between the partners (sic:suckers) then all of us should have noticed one country that would have been awarded many more contracts than the others.
As far as I know the country that has the majority of contracts is US and not because it is cheaper than its allies…
It is because its government as a measure to protect its companies actually acts not as a socialist government but as a communist one.
Funkycartel_1Just because you bought a ticket to the dance doesn’t mean the belle of the ball is obligated to dance with you.
Norwegian companies have to compete against Brit, Italian, Australian, Canadian, Turk, Dutch and Danish companies. The lowest bidder who can meet the spec will get the business. JSF is not a socialist jobs program for Norwegians.
Oh! We thought it was a co-operation program not an open competition. Obviously all non european can not see that US played a trick on our (european) back.
LM could have given subcontracting jobs from many other projects to its companions (sic: suckers – not the other way around!) as EADS does with its customers. Ethics… :rolleyes:
Funkycartel_1Are the planes going to be flyed by their pilots or by the plane’s computer?
To be honest the only thing I believe we will see is – of course – the courage of some pilots and the autopilot of the russian industry.
Such achievements were impressive in the -much more romantic – past.
Funkycartel_1It would have been unthinkable even a couple of decade back for
earthlings to even consider the possibilities that there’re these lakes, rivers, mudslides,
Katrina force windstorms and more, which mirrors almost that of the earth and which is so similar
and so close to home in one of Jupitors many moons. Therefore…Why is it so unrealistic that the next thing that science will discover,
and prove, might not be the possibility of life forms, i.e., a Nessie of kind, in the toxic
and inhospitable lakes, rivers, and atmosphere of this moon of Jupitor?.
Who told you that it was unthinkable???
There were a lot of discussions and predictions that actually didn’t fail at all.
As for your second statement it is true that there might be completely different types of life out there but if you read carefully what I wrote is that there are quite a lot of possibilities that life could be similar.
Funkycartel_1Well here we go:
you see UFO photos it has 2 legs 2 hands 2 eyes! Almost the size of humen!! Umm how it is possible?
ok if there is life somewhere in some planet in our galaxy well it could be the size of a bacteria or very very big! and there is no guarantee it look in body shape almost like humen and so smart!!
Think about it.
Well there are quite a lot of possibilities to be almost identical to human kind provided that the gravity in their home planet would be similar to the earth’s one.
Scientists have thought about that and although he didn’t speak specifically about aliens, Galileo studied this aspect first. Actually he studied what we call today “scaling”. For example “King Kong” can not exist in earth at least not with the capabilities his smaller relatives have.
Galileo studied scaling when he tried to explain where a place like “Dante’s inferno” could be and if it could ever exist!
Today tools like “Buckingham’s law” and other help scientists to predict the behaviour of objects they never saw.
Also have anyone thought that those people that make “documentaries” simply cannot understand a simple thing of NASA scientists’ work about how to reach the moon?
Funkycartel_1this problems doesn’t apply only to ships but also to bridge building or port facilities building, therefore there are a lot of techniques to address the problem.
For ship building the most common technique would be sandblasting of steel surfaces after the finish of all welds and application of coating. It is of high importance to achieve the best quality of sandblasting (according to ISO 8501 it is called Sa 3 if I m not mistaken – the swedish were the first ones to introduce such standards) and to paint directly before the steel starts to rust again. Port facilities and bridges might have parts zinc plated (galvanised) however this technique dosn’t have application in ship building, at least with parts that come in contact with water.
However ships are not made all from steel, therefore you could find in the internal parts from aluminum or stainless steel, like consoles etc. All those parts are plated like chromium plated (you could hear the expression “they have Alodine”) from the market name of a solution that is used for plating.
However, whatever measures you can take rust will be the winner, therefore it is necessary to make routine inspections and repair rusty parts.
Funkycartel_1Yeah but lots of that money flows back into the country’s economy and in some cases keeping jobs and developing the industry makes it worth it. Importing might be cheaper but that doesn’t mean it would be more economical as well.
Generally speaking this is true. I couldn’t agree more, but some times the technology that is developed simply doesn’t fit in any other product either for civil or military use.
To go a little further, when you develop a pruduct you have two approaches, the “evolutionary” and the “revolutionary” (I think I mentioned it also in the past, in another thread) . The first makes little steps in technology gained while the second makes huge progress but with high risk that the new knowledge might not be useful at the end.
Those people that think money when they demand a new military project ask for as many as possible “of-the-self” components. It reduces risk to the minimum not only for the developer but also for the customer.
Expressing my personal opinion I would like some people that were involved to the development of the Commanche or the V-22 project to be send to justice. Even if you speak about technology gained, or development or whatever you say, you cannot forget simple bussiness rules, which is that you actually have to produce a product that at least does the job it has to do.
Will you guys accept to see money spend for decades in the construction of a huge and spectacular bridge which at the end will not be sufficient to allow cars to travel on it?
As for the training aircrafts, it is actually a good example.
Funkycartel_1If only that were true… you could have kept them happy with the box the toys came in… then as dreadnought suggests, there’d be a lot more humans around if all the engineers did that.
Unfortunately, I think it’s true. Just think how many children in the word are actually happy only with “the box that the toy comes in” while the children in our places demand both the truck and the tractor. More or less is the same with big boys.
But you gave me an exellent idea for a new thread. It would be a better place to continue our discussion there…
See you later
Funkycartel_1Having a similar career as an engineer in Europe I can only agree with you. However, I am in a process to lead the company I currently work in both peace and military projects. For example our experience in high-speed machining and integration of complete CAD/CAM/CIM package together with people from the local university will allow us to involve in medical applications.
Dealing with weapons technology is of course a philoshophy dilemma but in my opinion it is essential for technicians and engineers to work part of their career in the area and then transfer the technology to peaceful applications.
As for politicians and generals, it doesn’t mater what they ask for. They need some toys anyway, like babies don’t care if you give them a tractor or a truck to play since both are toys.
Funkycartel_1Well why are you interested in the most cost effective since it seems that the majority of users of such airplanes do not choose using the criteria that you mention.
For example the British support that Nimrod is the most cost effective. They would support the same even if they used the retired Concords 😀
Funkycartel_1My opinion is the Lockheed Martin has made so many F-16s that they are the most inexpensive fighters around (and in the Block 50/52 form, pretty darn capable) and LM seems to be willing to sell them to just about ANYBODY!!! Parts/support isnt a problem……..so why would anyone buy anything else? It will be a long time befor F-35 out sells F-16.
To put it a bit different LM has made so many F-16s that they made the best profit from all defense industries around the world.
If the criteria were purely manufacturing based, F-16 should now be sold half priced.
Of course there are even more smart people (I m talking about BAe – they are able to make huge profit from NIMRONDs!)
Sign In
