Snow Monkey@matt: Sure.
Explaining/debating why/whether F-16 and F-18 are loser bidders is topical to the thread, because they ARE in the MMRCA. The whole frame of debate (relative merits of MMRCA bids) has disappeared for a fantastical showdown with an illiterate deaf-mute whose tune does not deviate one bit – Honestly, I can’t believe the patience of others when point after point refuting said poster’s ignorance and misrepresentation are shrugged off to no effect, without even a shred of acknowledgement. Continuing to collectively participate in such a charade tells me more than one here is missing some screws.
Snow Monkeyit’s not the same thing because whatever you think of those aircraft, they ARE in the (real, actual) MMRCA competition.
Tejas is not, phantom Korean Stealth Fighters are not, and the flying yogis bid is also not being considered in the MMRCA process.
Respectability of posters’ debate style aside, I would say the same if a mega-fan of F-35 continually injected debate over another non-MMRCA contender.
if I ignore the Tejas debate that pretty much means… I am ignoring this entire thread.
Such discussion of Tejas has it’s merits, but it doesn’t belong in a “MMRCA News and Discussion” thread.
It belongs in a “Merits of following thru with MMRCA process vs. dropping it and pursuing Tejas Mk.2 ” thread.
Snow Monkeyif the data is inaccurate, outdated and not germane, then there should certainly be no problem giving similarly inaccurate, outdated and non-germane data to NG
right?
quite…
Snow MonkeyThanks, GrM
great info (& pics) to get an idea of serbian industry…
Snow MonkeyAnd should i interpret it as a maneuver to get better bid, or Silva gets a tip from Dassault while Embraer gets it from SAAB ?
The constant intimation of bribery here is absurd.
I mean, it may well exist, but if there’s not a shred of evidence, it’s silly to bring it up.
The fact of the matter is that capabilties vs. requirements and cost is half the issue, strategic issues (international relations, autonomy & ToT) are the other half. That’s certainly not a cut and dry formula, but to resort to baseless allegations of ‘bribery’ is disingenuous. I would say the same if people felt the need to claim Boeing bribed South Korea to reject Rafale after it won technical merit: That’s only half the picture.
Snow MonkeySo does everybody else see the farce of this thread supposedly dedicated to the (real, actual) MMRCA Competition being completely taken over by the pet theory of a loon who blissfully ignores when pretty much every piece of his card house is pulled out, while the ‘authoritative sources’ he leaned on actually showed up to call him out? I really don’t see the difference to if I were to ceaselessly prattle on about Korean Stealth Fighters in this thread, or even flying yogis.
If he wants to start his own thread dedicated to debating his pet theory “Stop MMRCA, Adopt Tejas Mk.2 (whenever)”, that seems completely reasonable. In any case, I’d much prefer actual productive, interesting discussion on the (real, actual) MMRCA competitors. If mods are not banning said poster for thread-jacking, I’d invite all posters actually interested in the (real, actual) MMRCA competition to put Abhi on their ignore list (I have).
BTW, is anybody familiar with the REASON Abhi was banned from BR?
Snow MonkeyI figured they might want to bid both options…
Being ~99% the same, the extra work documenting both versions doesn’t seem exorbitantly large.
More like sedan vs. wagon options on a car. …Seems at least as likely as a 777 bid from Boeing, anyways.
But hey, it’s still at the draft stage of the RFP anyways…
Snow MonkeyLink: A330-200F now 1,100 lbs under previous weight forecast
This seems like a development that could effect the score for the Northop/Airbus bid…?
All in all, the draft RFP seems like it’s a quality approach… whoever wins by it…
Snow MonkeyYour appraisal of a likely “political new contract” seems the realistic outcome…
Thyssen would probably be happy enough if the prototype was inducted/ paid for, to maybe even agree to cover a certain amount of additional maintenance it will need (fuel cell, non-commonality with production models) which may be ‘justifiable’ enough for the Navy to accept it…
Over-all, of course these types of problems are par-for-course with developing a new product, the only difference here being that Greece is the export customer and isn’t really benefitting from overall 214 production for other customers, which is normally the main rationale to eat costs for prototype ‘problems’ like this.
EDIT: So I take it Thyssen doesn’t have any real problems with the 209 upgrade program,
but tying it to the Papanikolis issue increases the pressure on Greece by completely depriving it of a modeern sub fleet…?
…Taking both contracts to arbitration may come back to bite them if TK is breaching the contracted schedule themselves…
Snow MonkeyYes, you’re just supposed to believe…
What?
You wouldn’t believe a guy who doesn’t know the difference between a laser designator and a laser warning receiver?
And doesn’t even pause to reflect on his ignorance when informed of such lacking knowledge?
What?
Still have doubts?
OK, the fact this poster restricts himself to posting only on matters relating to Indian military procurement, and without exception holds up the banner of ‘indigenous’ procurement (your EADS consultancy is quite lovely, sahib) would surely convince you, right?
Well, just what do you think the posting pattern of a technically illiterate, irrationally nationalistic “true believer” would be?
…Oh…
Well, perhaps the best way we can all get along is agree the Indian MoD should just drop the MMRCA, agree to induct Tejas Mk.2 in it’s place when the EADS consultancy fairy has done it’s magic, and then pat ourselves on the belly, have some tea, and swap stories over how great it is to be Indian and how pitiful it is to be a Pakistani, and how much those know-it-all Westerners will wish they were Indian too, well, at least once we’ve actually matched them (according to the check lists, can’t forget the check lists).
And yes, my lack of signature does reflect deep feelings of inadequacy stemming from not being Indian…
Snow MonkeyThe Gripen AESA could actually have a slightly better range than the Rafale (The Selex radar has 1000 TR elements, the Rafale actually somewhat less — 850 or so?) and with the Swash-plate design you get a significantly larger search volume.
I believe their # of T/R modules will be roughly equivalent. If anything, the RBE2 should have slightly more.
HOWEVER: the Swashplate design IS a superior design approach, and besides larger angular coverage, it enables longer average range (given identical antennas and computing support) since it can more often be positioned for optimal angle/range to area of interest. That said, I doubt it’s enough to make a difference one way or the other.
Transfer of Technology, and liability to Export Controls seem much more of a priority for Brazil than +/-5% radar range. Not being a sole-source-country product like Rafale, but also involving Italy, UK, AND the US certainly is not a factor in Saab’s favor here. The US having RECENTLY vetoed Embraer’s sale of Super Tucanos to Brazil’s ally Venezuela is something Brazil will consider when judging whether to buy a fighter whose engine is US-sourced.
Snow MonkeyI’m sure a Brazilian poster could provide more info on this,
but AFAIK the Brazilian Navy has been trying to develop a nuclear sub for some time, so it’s hardly a stretch or a new project out of the blue. I have NEVER seen any talk of France transferring naval reactor technology: Brazil has already been developing it for this exact purpose. But indeed, the size of the ship they’re talking about just re-inforces what a stupid idea it is.
Personally, it seems absurd when long endurance AIP is available (DCNS’ next-gen MESMA looks great and current gen supposedly offers 21+ days submerged), and could even be extended by developing a “silent-refuelable at sea” operational protocol.
But the admirals want their nuclear sub :confused:
Re: Carriers,
Samsung is already cooperating with Atlantico on commercial ships – Combining this know-how with DCNS consulation and following the same semi-commercial block construction model of Mistral and (now cancelled?) PA2 seems like the path that’s being laid. Cats just open up way more options than ramps like India’s Vikrant has. With the aeronautic cooperation being discussed (Embraer/Dassault/etc) a future Fr/Br cat-launched AEW plane (manned or otherwise) doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
I’d be interested in who might be the next party to develop EMALS: it’s certainly do-able, and whoever does should be able to find some further customers in next 15-20-odd years. Resurrecting / re-inventing steam technology seems a dead end – there looks to be plenty more future uses (DE weapons for one) for a high electric-generation provisioning which EMALS would just be one user of.
Snow Monkeymatt, apparently from the article Pakistan cannot design or manufacture “dump trucks”, so a Jeep may also be beyond them (what would they do if they need to change a flat tire? steal american tire changing technology? maybe they are converting red crescent ambulances into nuclear bombs too!)
The whole approach to propaganda plants like this is not that people believe the pitiful claims it makes, but that the overall tide of disinformation sways people’s GENERAL perceptions. Discussing this as if it was a credible issue falls into the trap that the article was designed to create. The only intelligent thing to discuss IMHO, is the fact the New York Times “Newspaper of Record” so blatantly peddles such moronic crap in service of it’s power benefactors.
Snow MonkeyThe whole NY Times piece consistently tries to lend more credence to it’s bull**** by saying it’s a “US accusation” against Pakistan, when it is all anonymous sources, and nothing indicates that the US government itself has taken a position against Pakistan on this. Further, it throws in lines like this:
“While it may be technically possible to arm the Harpoons with small nuclear weapons, outside experts say it would probably not be necessary.”
Of course, they cover their asses with the admission it’s far from likely (#1 because Pakistan already has much better missiles for that task than Harpoon Block 1’s), but the completely irrational/un-called for INTRODUCTION of the meme makes the average reader think ominous thoughts.
Utter trash journalism. But hey, the New York Times is “credible”, right, so I guess we should just be led along by our noses and believe what they want us to believe.
Snow MonkeyThe NYT piece is total propaganda BS. I don’t care if you love/hate Pakistan, but the story is deceptive bull**** on par with Bush’s Iraqi WMDs or centrifuge tubes.
Presumably some cruise missile tests were picked up on radar. Easy enough with the amount of drones flying thru Pakistan that the Pakistani military loves to deny. And somehow this transient radar signature is supposed to be convincing evidence of the exact missile model. And then we’re supposed to believe Pakistan would want to upgrade an old US missile (i.e. motive) “because it can’t produce dump trucks, much less missiles”. Wow. There’s the smoking gun.
I love how it repeats Pakistan is “violating US law”. As if Pakistan is SUBJECT to US law in the first place. They could potentially violate an AGREEMENT (not that there’s any proof in this case), but *US LAW*?!?
Sign In
