Snow MonkeyYou could consider AMCA design finalized if it was entering production now.
It isn’t. It isn’t close to, that will be past 2020, closer to 2030.
That the program is so far in the future that concrete decisions don’t need to be made now, doesn’t mean the design is finalized.
India runs large numbers of development programs beyond what Korea considers.
This isn’t about denigrating either countries endeavors.
Snow MonkeyYes, it is the airline’s fault that people paid them money and then were denied the thing which they purchased, suffering further costs because they assumed the valid contract (ticket purchase) would be fulfilled when it wasn’t in the end.
Ryanair has no control over whether a volcano explodes, or whether air traffic control closes airspace.
But they do have control over their own policies, and if their own policies didn’t have people pay them money until the time services are rendered, then they wouldn’t have created their own obligation to provide those services or make up for the customers’ costs when that service isn’t provided. If they didn’t sell seat tickets until just before boarding, there would be zero expectation of seat availability, and zero obligation from Ryanair to provide those seats. Of course, it’s more beneficial to them to lock in passengers before a flight leaves, but with that benefit to them comes obligations.
Ultimately, this is an issue of law, and claiming ‘something unexpected does not count as extraordinary’ simply fails a simple glance at a dictionary… which the court held up.
Snow MonkeyBut the company refused to reimburse her, claiming the consequences of the eruption were so unexpected they could not count as ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
Uh, yeah… it was so unexpected it does not count as out of the ordinary. :rolleyes:
The fact is Ryanair is responsible for reimbursing customers against extraordinary circumstances, not just ones within their control. I would expect them to carry insurance for such events out of their control. The law is not even unclear here, so that Ryanair acted the way they did to the point of necessitating a court case just reveals that they really have some sort of wierd mindset that they believe they are above the law.
If they feel that airtraffic controllers un-necessarily closed air space, then they should sue those authorities. That has nothing to do with legal obligations to customers. Somehow I suspect most people would feel better with the current authorities in control of airspace and not Ryanair.
Snow MonkeyBear in mind also that, at least according to current planning, both Antonovs will be purchased anyway, so most of the required money will be expended anyway.
Right, the same amount of money could (in lieu of Il-476 debacle) could have funded Il-96 tankers/freighters or even Il-106.
Snow Monkeystill don’t know why they want to put two M88/F414-class engines in a ‘5th gen’ platform to be fielded closer to 2030…
(when Super Hornet should start to be phased out for NGAD or whatever they want to call it anyways)
the rationale for a lighter weight medium fighter vs. PAKFA is that it is cheaper, still using two engines runs against that,
much better to have a single engine F135 style, it could very well be a derivative of the stage 2 PAKFA engine,
at least as a stage 1 engine for flight trials+++, while an entirely new top notch engine is developed.
engine commonality with PAKFA would of course further promote economics, the raison daitre for a lighter fighter.
with dual assembly lines in India and a partner like Russia, exports would be more than possible,
but reaching the affordability goals will be the #1 enabler of that…
Snow MonkeyI need not reply to Eagle’s comment because he’s wrong.
Ohhhh…..
Alenia’s own brochures claim 5.2~5.6 max sustained G at 15,000 feet with no mention of fuel load, so M-346’s sustained G is almost 1 G below the USAF requirement in the best case scenario, this is a fact.
That has nothing to do with the point Eagle made, he never claimed M346 sustained G was higher, HE IS CONCEDING THAT POINT (as is the earlier posted quote from BAE, who likewise concedes that point, but doesn’t think it’s relevant to the KPP terms of tender, hence why they are spending millions on the tender). Eagle is noting the difference between the concept of ‘sustained g’ and the actual requirements which DON’T reference that term. That you ignore this again is flabbergasting. Everybody else can read what he wrote, so not addressing it doesn’t convince anybody.
If you can’t provide a source for supersonic REQUIREMENT (or even weighting) in KPP, then I won’t bother with my time anymore.
Alenia PR saying maneuverability is more important than supersonic (touted as important by KAI/Lockheed PR) is irrelevant to the KPP.
If you can’t provide a source for heavier external payload REQUIREMENT (or even weighting) in KPP, then I won’t bother.
Again, a tender can only be awarded based on things in the KPP and lowest cost.
Glendora graciously provides you links to the KPP, which of course you ignore. Classic. The KPP must be wrong. :rolleyes:
Snow Monkey/facepalm
The phrase ‘more importantly than supersonic’ does NOT in any way indicate that supersonic is important.
That could be true, but that phrase doesn’t indicate so.
I guess you also ‘forgot’ eagle’s previous response to you up-thread, providing specific details with links as to that topic…
Truly a mark of credibility there, ignoring details which don’t confirm your preconceptions…
The requirement isn’t really 6.5G sustained. The requirement is 6.5G “for no less than 15 seconds using no more than 15 degrees nose low attitude at 80% fuel weight between an altitude of 10,000 and 20,000 feet”.
see here http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-releases-draft-t-x-kpps-377693/
Maybe the current 5.6G sustained is already enough to cover those 6.5Gs in a dive. If not, more thrust is all thats needed. The M-346 is rated for 8Gs. Meaning structural reinforcing isn’t needed.
Btw, nose down, top speed is around M1.2.
So um… yeah… Want to discus a specific tender? Try referring to specific actual requirements of that tender.
Don’t feel in the mood? Great, you can wax poetic on your favorite jet all you like, but don’t keep on making unsupportable claims about specific tenders.
Snow MonkeyWhy is that a strange comment? Looking for sustained high-G does not mean the platform with higher/highest sustained G is preferred, simply meeting the performance thresh-hold is sufficient. Supersonic is not needed. This is the exact same point as my previous post, which you ignored…??? You seemed to drop the issue then, what changed? Nothing, AFAICT.
Snow MonkeyI wonder if they are considering something like a JV bank-leasing company as well as involving Dirgantara in both SSJ and MS-21.
What military transport involvement is considered for MiG, An-70? An-140?
Snow MonkeyIt seems at minimum there would need to be agreement of offset obligations, if nothing else.
Would the further 63 airframes be subject to the new (lower %) offset regime, vs. the original MMRCA program?
Snow MonkeyI doubt it. France has ordered 50 A400M, and has mooted the possibility of accelerating deliveries. If the budget allowed it, further A400M orders have been floated as desirable, but that condition does not yet seem apparent… But further A400M orders seem more probable than C17. There is also An-124 thru SALIS (or other means), whose contract could be increased with An-124 possibly back in production, and C390 as a future C130 class transport seems reasonably likely. A330MRTT seem set to be purchased at some point soon as well. That’s what all French strategic planning has come up with, and when it’s achieved they will be more than well off in terms of transport. C17s would just eat into their budget for achieving these planned goals.
Snow MonkeyAlternatively the variable ramps and auxiliary doors are merely a band-aid to assure the required supercruise capability with the interim engine, to be replaced by fixed caret intakes once the definitive power plant is available.
Variable intake ramps & auxiliary intakes are an integrated solution for the intake notwithstanding the incorporation of sub & supersonic flow diffusers- this is apparent in the official patent. Hence, I think one can rule out the CARET intake.
What is really known about the intended role/service of the ‘interim’ engine though?
If PAKFA will enter service with several units with this ‘interim’ engine, I wouldn’t say that the supporting measures to enable it’s performance are at all ‘ad hoc’ (for testing develpment only), but are in effect definitive of the first block of production PAKFA. That would justify full dedication to systems development and attendant patents.
This kind of goes along with the question about nozzles for 2nd engine, as well as rear engine housing area.
Performance with the ‘interim’ engine is supposedly meeting performance goals on it’s own, so putting it into service with this engine for the first block doesn’t seem problematic. That would leave the new engine architecture (possibly bringing along different related intake/exhaust systems) as a later block, essentially closer to the timeline of NGAD and later Chinese developments.
…???
Snow MonkeyTo be fair, it also compares it Il-476 and suggests it doesn’t quite reach Il-476’s performance.
Il-476: new-ish engines, same fuselage, same wing aerodynamics
Y-20: bad old engines, new fuselage, new wing aerodynamics
When they get new engines, even if they are nothing amazing, it will almost certainly outperform Il-476, although Il-476 has certain characteristics that may be better for certain tasks (and vice-versa).
EDIT: Is the purported payload based on current D30 engines or is it the design payload for ‘final’ engines?
Snow MonkeyMalian townsfolk lynch Islamist rebel leader – reports
Citizens of the northern Malian town of Gao have reportedly lynched a notorious Islamist leader in retaliation for the killing of a local journalist on suspicion he was cooperating with international radio.
the people in that town may be needing some more protection soon, if the fundamentalist militants aren’t busy enough just dealing with the broader situation. i hope they can get the help if they need it. perhaps those Nigerian F-7 will operate in that region?
Snow MonkeyExactly. IIRC the two countries than ran out of GPM were Denmrk & Canada and a US general used that as an excuse to bash all NATO countries about their limited PGM stocks.
Right. And I would say the bulk of US critiquing European NATO countries for military failings applies to some countries but not others. If all of NATO was on par with France there would be less complaints from the US/Gates. (not that France itself isn’t trying to address it’s own weaknesses) But acknowledging France isn’t always the common instinct in the US, because France has not always supported every US war, foreign policy, etc. 😎
The minimal, if any, support of the operation by other European countries seems like it should be as much a worry for France as the US. But it certainly seems like a spur of the moment decision, so that everybody didn’t just ‘jump’ immediately isn’t a surprise.
re: theatre basing, I read that the Snowy UAVs are being based out of neighboring Niger. this makes sense for operations in the eastern/northern areas, which are still a focus if not the ‘biggest’ immediate focus for ground troops trying to consolidate the southern region against incursions from the desert.
this conflict again makes me wonder when further munitions will be integrated on Rafale… will be interesting to see if the indian contract includes further integration.
Sign In
