ArthurAs a history major you could answer this question Ben, I always thought that in the time that our two lovely countries were still one it was called “De Nederlanden” instead of nowadays Nederland. I like the Flemish dialect a lot, I think it is more pure then the Dutch language, which was the dialect in Holland btw before it became the official language.
The official Dutch we use in the Netherlands is actually very, very heavily influenced by Antwerp. As you perhaps know, the first benchmark for a commonly accepted Dutch language (later known as Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands or Common Civilised Dutch, now Algemeen Nederlands without the Civilised bit) was derived from the Statenbijbel, the Dutch-language bible printed in great quantities from the late 1500s onward. This Statenbijbel was actually for a very large part produced by, and for, the refugees from Antwerp (who fled Antwerp in 1585, also see the VOC thread). So it was also ‘their’ language, which formed the basis for our modern-day Dutch.
The original language of Amsterdam and surroundings (basically the only part of the Netherlands that really mattered around those times) was a appearantly a lot closer to Frisian.
As for the name ‘House of Orange’, the Dutch royal family (also in their pre-Royal days) never actually lived there. The family originates in Germany, most notably the Dillenburg area some 100km north of Frankfurt. One of their offspring, a certain Willem, inherited some real-estate from René du Chalons including the city of Orange in France (home of EC.5 with it’s Mirage 2000s) and some posessions in the Netherlands. This inheritance basically started off the Dutch-Spanish war of 1568-1648. I don’t think any ruling member of the Dutch House of Orange ever took actual control over Orange. By the late 1650s, these lands had already been taken over by Louis XIV of France, the Sun King.
ArthurSince Britain had northest US as colonys, that became their supply of Oak when they ran out of Oak forests.
Not even that much. Britain was heavily forested originally, so there was plenty of timber to be found in England to make the huge fleets. The British ran out of forests during the Industrial Revolution. Before they started digging for coal to power their machinery and keep the steel mills furnaces running, they cut down the British forests.
Mind you, both the Dutch and the British had far easier acces to shipping timber through trading with the Baltic, for backup. Spain was far less forested than either of those two countries. In the beginning this didn’t matter all that much since the original ships from the Columbian era were really, really tiny. But about a century later, far larger fleets of ships five or six times bigger were required for both warfare and long-range trade. Spain’s forests couldn’t support that.
ArthurFrisian and Limburgish are linguistically different enough from Dutch to warrant an independent status as a language. Don’t know about West Flemish, but it sure sounds impossible enough to give it a separate status.
Do you happen to know which territories were actually part of the Belgian Republic? It’s from the historical era in which my region was more involved with Belgian history than Dutch, so i’m curious about that.
ArthurYep, Ufa as in known-for-the-best-looking-girls-in-Russia Ufa, Bashkortostan.
So does this mean the first batch of Tejas is going to fly with F404’s, and the rest with this UMPO-product (which indeed sounds an awful lot like an RD33 derivate).
ArthurThis thread is still here, but it seems like an awfully interesting practice target. But we haven’t been briefed yet by the webmaster.
ArthurWell, only in the earlier years of the Spanish-Dutch war religion was much of an issue, with the Catholic zealot of Philippe II of course one of the more rabid pro-Catholics of the era. In the later years few people in the Low Countries cared anymore (unlike Germany where the Thirty Years war raged on fueled by religious intolerance). Especially in the more peripherical areas of the Low Countries, rural areas switched side and religion several times. Mostly out of pure opportunism.
As for the defeat of the Armada: during the early stages of the battle, the wind actually turned which effectively bottled up the Spanish fleet.
Never been to Waterloo, i’m sorry. Only Napoleonic battlefield i visited were Borodino, Bykhav and Orsha 🙂
ArthurThe Netherlands are actually misused. In fact, the Netherlands are both the country it is today AND Belgium. In fact, Belgium is just latin for the Netherlands. Theoretically spoken, both countries mean the same, only in different language.
Not entirely true. The name Belgium has nothing to do with the ‘name’ Lower Countries (meaning the countries at the combined estuaries of the Rhine, Maas, Schelde and IJssel rivers), but it was used by the Romans in their time to denote the area inhabited by the Celts of the Belgae tribe. They lived in the Low Countries, south of the Maas/Rhine rivers. To the North (which was never officially occupied by the Romans) the Batavirs lived. The territories of Belgiae and the Low Countries as such do not overlap.
When Belgium was a republic (for a while) back in 1789 it was named the United Dutch States (Etats-Unis Belges), the Netherlands were called the United Provinces of the Netherlands, or short ‘The Republic’. Very confusing, not?
I didn’t know that. I know the name Belgium was reinstated for the southern part of The Netherlands (or the former Spanish Netherlands if you will) during era of the French Revolution, a revolution-bandwagon which was gladly jumped upon by the former Spanish Netherlands. But the United Provinces/The Republic by then were effectively in a civil war between Royalists and Republicans: there hardly was a country to speak of.
However, there IS a big difference. If there’s one thing I’ll do in the UEFA-cup it’ll be burning that ugly, hideus orange flag :D. Naah
Please let me join in, in burning that flag! Besides, the nerve with which the Dutch royal family still names itself after a French airbase even though they lost that airbase during the reign of Louis XIV…:D
Ohh and one last remark. ‘Dutch’ in ‘Dutch’ means Dietsch which is German. The language should be renamed Netherlandish, or else, Arthurian 😀
Yep. Dutch = Dietsch = Lower German. In the Middle Ages when the Low Countries were still part of the German Empire, the languages started evolving separately. Lower German from the lower Rhine/Maas area became Dutch, Upper German from upstream the Rhine river became the official language of the hundreds of German mini-states. That’s where the official nam Hochdeutsch (=High German) has it’s origin.
Dutch and Flemish are one and the same language btw, and (although definately confusing) Dutch is the proper name of that language, being closer to it’s original than the Dutch translation of “Nederlands” (=Netherlandish). There are a few Dutch dialects which can be/should be/are considered a separate language though. Most notably West Flamish (Ben, you can make any sense out of Flip Kowlier? I don’t!), Frisian (already acknowledged) and the two Limburgian dialects (which in itself are far too regionally differing to make any sense of at all).
ArthurD’Artagnan died when storming Maastricht (now in the Netherlands) in 1672. Maastricht was a Republic-controlled city in what was still known as the Spanish Netherlands. And don’t ask for details about that – the region in which Maastricht lies has had more micro-borders changing every two weeks than any other part of the world i can think of. The city of Roermond where i was born (some 50km north of Maastricht) has been owned by seven different countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Spain, Russia and The Netherlands) in less than 400 years :rolleyes:
The Duke of Parma was indeed sent to the Netherlands from Spain in order to reconquer/reclaim the breakaway Republic for Spain. But when he was fighting at one place, other places do as they pleased and joined/stayed with/re-joined the Republic. We were a pretty unhandable bunch of people then 🙂
ArthurYou didn’t need to have large colonialist armies back then. Just give the crew of your ships firearms (let’s say some 200 men aboard a decent sized trading/colonisation flottila) to shoot a few inlanders, bribe a few chief tribesmen, and you suddenly find yourself ruling an area. The Dutch colonised the East Indies for a significant part by proxy, meaning that until today the people from the island of Java are the ones who run the whole country of Indonesia in a semi-colonial way.
The Spanish Armada of 1588 was fought together by the Dutch and British, as the Republic and the UK were sort of allied that day of the week. The destruction of this fleet, first by De Ruyter and the combined Dutch-British fleet and later by storm, basically ended Spain’s position as a maritime nation. There was a number of reasons for this, one of the more important and mundane ones is that Spain simply ran out of timber to build large fleets with. The Armada simply used most of Spain’s oak forests.
As for the Dutch ‘military’ might during the 80 Years War, this shouldn’t be overestimated. The Spanish were defeated by an interesting mixture of guerilla warfare (the Geuzen), technological innovations (so what if the enemy has inundated a besieged city, we’ll simply drain those inundations!) and only a handful large campaigns with bigger formations of hired soldiers. Naval warfare wasn’t much different – the Armada was defeated mostly because of the Dutch ‘Burners’, very small and low vessels (sailing UNDER the Spanish cannon trajectories) filled with combustibles, which were sailed towards the Spanish ships, attached to them by their crews and set alight with the crew then escaping in a small raft-like rescue boat.
Tactics like this managed to keep the war affordable for the Republic, and since the city of Amsterdam wasn’t bothered much by the Spaniards the Republic could afford to take it easy in waging the war. As a matter of fact, one of the few large-scale battles between the Spanish and the Republic (Nieuwpoort, 1600) was because the army of the Republic accidentally bumped into the Spanish army. The original mission of the Republic’s army was to go out and destroy a nest of pirates around Dunkirk, which was hampering the trade of the Republic.
ArthurThe technology demonstrator was far from being operational. A technology demonstrator is ment to demonstrate technology, not even to test the validity of a specific design. In fact, in a development process the stage of a technology demonstrator precedes that of a prototype. The two JSFs which have flown (the X-32 and X-35) were technology demonstrators, a prototype YF-35 is yet to fly.
And Grumman did design the aerodynamic surfaces of the Lavi. The general concept and aircraft’s layout was without a doubt Israeli, but the detailed design work was Grumman’s. Why else do you think Grumman built the prototype’s aerodynamic surfaces? Because IAI didn’t need the experience in trying to build them before taking them into full scale production? For IAI ‘hoping’ to eventually build the composite components (sorry for alliterating) itself, it depends on when your quote is placed. If it was around the time that the US was seriously considering dropping it’s financial support for the Lavi program, you are right. But this was in a pretty late stage of the whole process, and i believe actually after IAI thought of a production scheme for the Lavi. Besides, there is a world of difference in making simple composite panels like for the F-16 or F-15 as IAI is doing now, and large load-bearing composite structures like the Lavi’s wing.
Unfortunately i don’t think i will ever get the point across to you that there was nothing special about the Arye, or even the Lavi. There were lots of design studies for all other fighters, and plenty of those design studies made it a lot further than just a CGI-drawing like that of the Arye. Lockheed built large flying models for the JSF which didn’t look anything like the X-35, Grumman built a mockup of a single-finned pre-Tomcat, the original prototype for the Su-27 was basically a totally different design than all later versions of the Flanker, the EAP technology demonstrator which preceded the Eurofighter proto- and development aircraft… I can go on and on here.
Now please Erez, can you seriously deny any of the following statements:
ArthurThe Dutch Republic at the time was incredibly rich anyway. The city of Amsterdam did’t see any fighting during the war, and thanks to a large influx of capital from Antwerp (the bulk of the Antwerpian rich people fled Antwerp for Amsterdam when Antwerp definately fell to the Spanish in the late 1500s) Amsterdam, and with it the Republic, could thrive.
Also, the VOC was the first company to actually sell shares. Wealthy traders (a significant part of them arms traders with Spain 😀 ) put their money in the VOC, which helped that company a lot. Another helpful source of income was the WIC, or the West Indische Compagnie. These were basically hired pirates who hung out in the Caribbean, preying for Spanish merchant vessels. This put even more pressure on Spain being overstretched already, so there wasn’t much to fear from them in the main Dutch colonies. Don’t forget that until the late 1500s, the only people who know the sailing routes towards the East were the Dutch and the Spaniards.
The VOC did have some combat capability on it’s ships, but this was mostly defensive. The WIC had far better armed ships for it’s piracy job.
ArthurOne air force still operating the Dakota is all too often forgotten. The RAF still has one serialled ZA947, as support aircraft for the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.
ArthurNow we’re getting somewhere!
So, you say about 55% of the Lavi was US made?
I say you could be right, when talking about the prototype stage.
A stage the Lavi never grew out of. Everything beyond the Lavi as a trio of prototype is speculation, but anyway.
I don’t have a list of the US made components in the Lavi, but the most obvious are the parts made of composite materials, such as wings, tale, canards and other smaller parts, that were made by Grummen.
Which means ALL aerodynamic surfaces. Pretty important for an aircraft if you ask me – arguably the most important from an aircraft design point of view.
I have a question for you Arthur, and I do expect an answer. In your opinion, how much precent are these parts I mentioned above from the all aiplane?
So we’re talking about aerodynamic surfaces, the engine, the fly-by-wire system… i would say some 60 to 70% of the weight of an empty aircraft. Not that a percentage here is all that important: the vital pieces of the Lavi’s or any aircraft design (propulsion + lift) were American.
..(snip)..“in the future, the people of the IAI are hoping to transfer the production of all the composite parts of the Lavi to Ramta (*An IAI factory near Be’er-Sheva) and to make this ability to the main ability of the factory”.
Take notice of the words “…the people of IAI are hoping to transfer…” meaning that there was no plan yet to transfer wing production. Also, this would have ment a licensed production of a Grumman design by an Israeli company. Nothing spectaculair really, it would in practice have ment that IAI could have become a subcontractor for an airplane which nominaly was it’s own.
BTW, even though the Lavi was cancelled, today Ramta does produce parts made of composite materials for the IDF/AF’s F-16s and F-15s, and for the Raam and the Sufa.
So what? Plenty of countries do aviation sub-assemblies. China builds parts and panels for both Boeing and Airbus, the Netherlands haven’t just built F-16s under license but also made a lot of the landing gears for other F-16 production lines, etcetera.
The article also states that the Martin Baker ejection seat the Lavi uses will also be produced in Israel, in IAI’s Golan Industries factory, though the Lavi will have its first flight with the American made version of this ejection seat.
License-building again, nothing to be particularly proud of. This time of an Americanised version of a British design. A third-hand design this time 🙂
All in all, we can say that a large part of the Lavi was US made, and some of it was even US designed, but certainly not 60%.
The fuselage was Israeli, yes. If you consider a fuselage to be more than 40% of an aircraft, be my guest. I beg to differ.
Too many people are missing the Arye stage in the development of the IAI. Most of the people think we “jumped” from the Kfir to the Lavi, but very few know that the Arye existed, and was an important stage too.
The Arye was a design proposal, which you for some reason find particularly special. Do you have any idea how many design proposals and studies are made around the world? There were more countries playing around with similar designs: Yugoslavia’s Novi Avion, South Africa’s Cava to name but two. The Arye/Lavi actually reached the stage of flying prototypes, yes. But that was thanks to American money, and American aid in the design of the Lavi. Without that help, the Arye/Lavi wouldn’t have gotten any further than all the other still-born design proposals. You can ask Deino how many of those there were.
So important, that its conceptual design number 33 was the Lavi itself. Again, we are talking about the mid 70s here. Israel didn’t have the F-16 yet. Actually, the F-16 was more known as the YF-16 at the time.
Again: it was a conceptual design. So what? The conceptual design of the (Y)F-16 dates from the 1960s. The YF-16s first flew in 1974, more than ten years before the Lavi. Still plenty of time to change the design of (for example) the Arye intake… especially since the Arye pic you’ve posted here a number of times doesn’t show the intake or anything.
ArthurNobody thinks BMW-drivers are more likely to exaggurate their sex lives? I think they do.
ArthurWell, the Supreme Master of This Piece of Web will inform the Moderator-elects shortly. A little more patience before the Glorious Benefits of the Benign Oligarchy will be noticed by the Trustworthy Masses.
Comrade Hu Peng, now that’s a long time ago!
Sign In
