Snow MonkeyI wouldn’t read any more into it re: policy implications than the replacement of the US CIA director over an ‘extramarital affair’ (not involving graft apparently). Cheating on one’s wife (daughter of high ranked official) *with a subordinate accused of graft* is just not a good idea, regardless of country. Cross your fingers that this helps reduce corruption. What happens to Moscow government?
Snow Monkeyit sounds like IAG is taking a controlling stake directly, leaving the remainder with Iberia, which is useful to them because otherwise there would be problems with Iberia and Iberia Express whose labor negotiations have been difficult. With IAG taking control of Vueling, Iberia Express can just be dropped… or otherwise have their negotiations ‘forced’ by threat of doing so now in light of Vueling. i believe they’ve stated that they intend to continue Vueling operations as a distinct entity/ distinct management/ rules, albeit syncronized with other operations obviously.
Snow Monkey🙂 I meant a thread specifically for the topics JSR brought up here,
but sure, there’s probably an efficiency argument for just having a JSR thread,
and since he seems so comfortable at moving between and substituting one debate for another, why not?
Snow MonkeyHi, if anybody finds it productive to engage with JSR, can you make a separate thread for that?
I’d rather this thread be used for discussions of actual reality, in which India has already decided to get CH-46, and already operates C-17 and soon will operate A330MRTT. There is still an open question about what will happen to the old Mi-26 fleet, which I’m interested in hearing more about (the idea of selling them to a local Indian commercial operator, who would possibly upgrade them to T2 config seems like a good idea).
Snow MonkeyI seem to remember that IAF was planning to upgrade the existing Mi-26’s to basically the same config as the new T2’s that they considered buying… Is that still planned?
Does anybody know why India never considered CH-53K’s as well?
Snow Monkeyuntil 2074….!?!?
i assume they compared JSF industrial benefits to those from workshare/offsets in Gripen NG? :rolleyes:
the italians seem to be quite worried on how their JSF industrial benefits will actually manifest.
Snow Monkeyhi, can everybody just not engage with JSR at all?
he’s obviously not actually interested in this topic as an ‘aviation fan’,
he’s just using it as a vehicle to dredge up his views on russia.
i’m not really sure what his point is here (often the case), apparently he DOES think UAE is indeed strongly interested in a new fighter fleet (to fight a war with saudi arabia), and apparently they are also motivated to pursue strong ties with russia, even though there is no evidence they have talked about any fighter plane purchase with russia.
wow. what a rafale thread.
Snow MonkeyIf 56 JSFs were procured, the operational objectives of the armed forces, and thus the Netherlands’ contribution to NATO, would have to be reconsidered.
if operational objectives and netherlands’ role in NATO are up for reconsideration (downward), gripen (NG) should obviously be considered. i mean, there’s literally no escaping this, whether Netherlands sticks with F-35 or not, the report makes that clear.
Snow MonkeyMaybe Denmark’s best contribution to coalition is their C-130Js. Airlift in the sustainment role provides value. A combat jet that cannot be used until day 4 (when the enemy’s IADS is defeated) is of marginal value.
AESA equipped Gripens can easily do CAP, HVCAP and many other roles to free up stealth assets. And against most enemies the Gripen should have no problem to do day 1 strikes. If the need be they can always add an air launched cruise missile to the arsenal.
I believe I saw a US study that showed that cruise missiles were most cost effective when operations last a week to 10 days or less, strike aircraft which can do the same job are more economic if it lasts longer. Anything that is taken out in 4 days (or 7 or 10) is well within the window for cruise missile’s to be considered.
I believe it was brought up during Libya, that the idea of having a cheaper platform to cover tasks (CAP, etc) that will need to be done no matter what is just much more economic and realistic than higher end ones whose capacities aren’t needed for that job.
Finally, if Sweden has gotten by with Gripen and soon Gripen NG, why can’t Denmark?
It’s not like Denmark has a more dangerous security situation.
Sweden is constantly integrating more within NATO coalition operations.
Certainly many other NATO members are not likely to get F-35, and Gripen NG is certainly fully NATO compatable.
Snow MonkeyIt doesn’t really sound like Gripen options are really being compared (in the report).
I’m dubious of the idea that it costs less to go ahead with F-35 than not to.
I mean, even if you got all the planes for free, their maintenance costs would be higher
(than nothing/ than Gripen… although i don’t believe they’re doing a comparison with that because it would just look too bad for F-35).
The idea of industrial share is a canard, this won’t be taken away just because NL doesn’t buy F-35,
and 50 odd planes are not going to materially affect the scale of business for F-35 component work one way or the other.
It is also ignoring the work-share potential for Gripen NG.
Going with Gripen lease + new Gripen NGs lets maintenace/refurb work on F-16s immediately be scaled back since leased Gripen can fill in, and only the least costly maintenance needs for F-16s would need to be done until that fleet is phased out completely. This on top of Gripen NG itself being cheaper to buy and maintain.
If the government can’t actually address Gripen NG/Gripen lease scenarios, and wants to invent ‘quitting is more expensive than continuing’ scenarios, they are just trying to hide from the real issue. If cost is the issue, looking at Gripen solutions is pretty much the basic option (if others also exist, e.g. Rafale).
The question needs to be asked: does Netherlands have fundamentally more/stronger airforce needs than Sweden?
Gripen (NG) is NATO compatable, and can certainly fulfill many roles in NATO coalition operations.
It is certain that many NATO countries will not end up operating F-35 (Eastern European ones).
Netherlands operated F-16 during the late Cold War with USSR, when USSR was operating Su-27 – a stronger plane.
The idea that operating a lower-tier plane is not compatable with Dutch defense needs just doesn’t seem borne out.
Snow MonkeyAm I correct in thinking that the final inquest to the Superjet crash in Jakarta hasn’t been released yet?
Given the news about type certification, I would guess that they have definitively decided that the crash was not due to any problem with the plane itself, even if they have not decided exactly how to apportion the blame between the pilot and ATC…?
Snow MonkeyIndonesia’s Approval Of SuperJet Clears Sky Aviation Deliveries
Indonesian regulators have validated the type certificate of the Sukhoi Superjet, paving the way for Indonesian carrier Sky Aviation to take delivery of its first Superjet in November. (…)
Indonesian Aerospace In Talks To Manufacture Sukhoi SuperJet Parts
Indonesian state-owned aircraft maker Indonesian Aerspace (IAe) is negotiating with Russia-based Sukhoi to manufacture parts for the Sukhoi SuperJet.
An agreement could see IAe making the empennage, a senior IAe official tells Aviation Week. “It will take a few months to settle the negotiations,” the official says. He declines to say if the plan is for IAe to be a sole-source or second-source supplier. But the official says, “In the request for proposals, they’ve asked that we have the ability to produce 50 to 60 empennages per year.” That is the equivalent of the forecast total annual production rate for the Sukhoi SuperJet, the official adds.
Snow MonkeyI read that the Progress prop-fan engines for An-70 are being considered for modernisation of Bears… Any more info on that?
Snow Monkeyhi, can we keep it on topic?
Snow MonkeySurely BAE was moving towards the UCAV/UAV market as its aviation future (with government support and backing). EADS is not as advanced in that regard and has not had much success in new fixed wing military programmes beyond Airbus.
sure, the dassault/bae cooperation would have certainly continued… with EADS owning bae, that takes off the pressure eads had been pushing for their own programmes, and germany could be brought on board thru BEADS.
I have heard consolidation with RR mentioned, but i don’t know how that helps things particularly?
well, EADS never built engines, so i’m not sure why BEADS failing would prompt this…?
i suppose it has the same ‘financial’ logic with broadening cash flows beyond BAE’s defense business,
but why would RR possibly want to involve itself in this transaction?
it may make sense for RR to buy certain activities from BAE, e.g engine auxiliaries, and other systems and controls, if they wanted to follow GE/Smiths,
but why merge with a naval and lands systems and EW company?
Is the general perception that a transatlantic deal would see BAE become an American company with less interest in UK sovereignty?
well then the question would be would the UK government be happy to see it’s golden share go away? i don’t see why they would. if the golden share transfers, it’s more a matter of BAE ‘taking over’ any other company, from the UK government perspective. i don’t see any big deals combining whole companies, there’s plenty of scope for smaller consolidation with sectoral JVs. eads has said as much that such is still a possibilty with BAE.
Surely its the case that the BAE/EADS concept only worked if it was to be allowed to function as a truly commercial proposition rather than a state sponsored arms supplier.
why couldn’t BEADS have functioned with similar shareholder rights as EADS? because enders doesn’t like that? BAE holdings in the US have proxy boards just like EADS does… no difference there. if other BAE holdings were deemed ‘sensitive’, they could be placed under proxy as well, if it came to it.
and does anyone in Westminster want the main UK arms supplier to become an entity that would ensure every procurement would be a Eurofighter type saga?
why would that be the case? EADS or MBDA certainly pursue programmes ordered by only one country, even that heavily overlap programmes pursued by their divisions in other countries. for programmes equivalent to eurofighter, there is going to be a multinational program anyways regardless of the corporate alliances involved being under one roof or not.
Sign In
