First clip is great fun a late friday night. Must say I’m quite surprised to hear about the chinese pilots skills in english…

Nevertheless, I think that ATC should avoid sarcasms such as could be heard about the construction work. A crisp and simple answer would be more appropriate (and professional).

Regards,
Cliff

So what it all comes down to is a question whether Airbus has given a green light to heavier seats/beds etc in the front of the plane or not?

Shouldn’t be too hard to settle out. There’s got to be documents about this…

Regards,
Cliff

Not trying to hijack this thread; but I’ve been wondering about a thing for quite some time now. Why did Finland end up with F-18 Hornets?

At that time I would believe that F-16, F-18, Gripen and Mirage would have been options. Gripen was at that time quite an imature fighter, making it a dark horse despite the good relations between Finland and Sweden. Mirage was french, making it a bad choice (just as Gripen) if you want to send Moscow a signal saying that Finland got powerful friends. A US product would be suitable – and here comes the question: If you want a US jet for fighter role, why go for the mud-moving F/A-18 Hornet instead of F-16?

Can’t figure this one out if they didn’t intend to use it as a mudmover from the very beginning. But why removing this role then?

Regards,
Cliff

PS If Finland wants this type of missile they should opt for Taurus KEPD 350. I very much doubt Germany would refuse to sell em.

Personal I have`nt made up any opinion if this is the right decission for
Norway or not, since I dont know what the new MOU looks like.
But maybe someone on this forum knows? Or have an personal opinion:)
If Norway doesnt buy JSF, but ex. Gripen or Eurofighter, will Norway still
be regarded as an equal JSF partner with possible workshares??

If Norway opts for Gripen or Eurofighter I would be very much surprised if you would get workshare on JSF. Especially if look at how much workshare Norway has been given so far.

Having said that, I can hardly see the need for workshare on JSF if you (most unlikely) opt for Eurofighter or Gripen. These two fighters will surely come with an offset agreement and/or tech transfer on their own.

My personal opinion is that you’re on to something quite important here. This fighter deal isn’t just about cashing up front to get a couple of jets. With these amounts of money you could expect more than that, and I don’t mean getting a couple of contracts to manufacture a couple of glass canopys or whatever either. I mean getting serious knowledge of aerospace design work or research. As an example you could take a look at South Africa which indeed are manufacturing parts for Gripen but also gets a Flight Test Centre built up by Saab for flight testing of their Gripen fighters which will enhance their national defence industry (read Denel).

Just my two cents!

Regards,
Cliff

Just as long as those “risk sharing partners” do not include the governments of France & Germany. :diablo:

There is a proven solution to this kind of problem – why not let France & Germany order a couple of thousand A400s? :dev2:

I think that those who promote US made fighters for european states should go check their history. Saab in Sweden was created during world war II because all of Sweden’s ‘friends’ refused to sell proper fighters to Sweden and instead kept them for their own air forces.

Today you can see the same manouevers being made by US when it comes to JSF. Not even the closest Nato allies will get the full spec version – but are directed towards a downgraded version.

Makes me glad to see that we still got european aerospace industries with competetive projects – may it be Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen. Even if it comes with a price I would consider it as a cheap insurance…

Regards,
Cliff

Greece is using Erieye system for 7 years (the rented ones). And since 2003 it has the ones that were specially built for her. So if a country doesn’t accepts a system in 3 years something ought to be wrong.(as in Leo-2s and U214)

This statement is just typical for the whole thread.
There isn’t one single valid claim of any faults/hoops/design flaws of the Erieye here – yet certain (fill in what you think is the most likely nationality here) keeps implying this and that. You have been given credible sources such as Flight in defence to the Erieye – but all we have seen in return is some obscure papers from 60’s or mid 90’s talking about planar arrays in general or early Erieye versions.

Now I don’t expect to see a change in tactics here, but from time to time I’ll eventually drop by the forum and see if what we in west call credible sources (hint: not my dad’s cousin’s wife’s sister’s husband’s cow’s former owner) is being used. Until then, I’ll just carrying on ignoring the vast majority of threads created by either X or Y nationalities since these two fellas can’t have a serious debate without turning into a frenzy of teenage geniuses supporting their beloved country.

Regards,
Cliff