SchorschCome to think of it, what makes anyone think if they get F-16 or Gripen A/B that they also get amraam? Would the Gripen A/B have to go the Derby/Darter-U routes? Would seem the MiG-35/JF-17 mix would be a better strategy because the former options give bvr capability. The real bind is the armaments; MiG-35 would use r-77, but the JF-17 would only support sd-10.
Actually, given recent performance of the Russian AF in Georgia, Ukraine will try to get its hands on latest ground-based defense systems. That can be bought and shipped with much less public attention. A few HAWK batteries … no medie headline.
SchorschThat all makes sense. Upgrades & life-extensions of the best airframes in the current fleet is probably the most cost-effective route for the immediate future, but there are sound political reasons for new types, when they must be bought, to be non-Russian.
I guess Ukraine does not only need aircraft.
It needs the ability to integrate these into an efficient system. When it really feels threatened by Russia in a military way they would like to get their hands on experience of NATO countries, foremost the USA. The USA is the master of air combat and can teach some lessons. This cannot happen in the open but might be part of a wider offering when purchasing aircraft. Western European countries are most likely unable to provide this service without severe political repercussions.
SchorschSeeing as how the 747 was tested to M 0.98, it’s not unreasonable to think the A380 was tested to a similar top speed.
I hoped that maybe the idea of MMOx1.07 came to his mind.
And yes, I know the top speed.
SchorschAnd the Eurofighter is essentially a Italian/German design so obviously Scorpion is a nationalist fanboy seriously bitter about not having his own national fighter jet design to cheer on. It’s just ridiculous to watch and further degrades the quality of this forum.
Correct, the British just provide the cupholder.
Well, here is one of our problems. Most of us Brits are always looking back about half a century, patting ourselves on OUR backs for what WE did ! :confused: WE DIDN’T…. Our ancestors did. I think it’s a great shame that British entreprenneurs like Richard Branson can’t have their fun with a British company, and has to go to the impressive, yet small, relatively new Scaled Composites in USA to realise Virgin Galactic. I am beginning to think UK won’t ever get back into it’s own design and production. WWe’re becoming useless consumers of other’s clever products. It’s a disgrace.
Don’t be miserable, young fellow.
Britain designs & produces the wings for half of the airliners in the world, including the by far largest. Britain still has technological lead in many areas in Europe, without Britain projects like A400M or A380 are unthinkable. Rolls Royce is the only engine manufacturer in Europe that can design, produce and sell competitive engines for all applications on its own funds.
The only failure of the British was to allow manufacturing to go away, something that is not regrettable from a pure financial point of view. I think even today the British government refrains from having too much influence in its privately owned aviation industry (=BAe), with the result that BAe practically canceled the “B” in its name and did strategic non-sense like getting rid from of its stake in Airbus.
Aviation industry is too sensitive to let it just be managed by private investors and managers, some loose government control and oversight is of advantage.
SchorschI have to confess, I would rather have Norwegian gas warming my shower, just for the sake of our past with Russians, but the reality is different, nothing I can do about that.
I have no problem admitting that Airbus makes much larger business on civilian market than Tupolev/Ilyushin/Sukhoi and Ukrainian Antonov together and righfully so, their products are great. But using this as a proof of advantage of German/European industry over Russian is a bit strechted, don’t you think? Let us say that both industries are specialized for different things and different clients and they both are good at what they are doing. Russia is trying to re-enter civilian aviation market adn while I have no doubts about their airframnes being roughly equally good, they still have a lot to catch up in terms of engines. Maybe even reliability, I don’t know.
On a side note, I recenty had a possibility to examine a Tu-204A on Kosice-Barca airfield an was plasantly surprised about the unexpectedly high quality of workmanship, even of the interior. The thing is nothing like a Westener would expect from a *Russian product* (and believe me, I know something about Russian products.. ;)) I don’t mind giving the thing a credit, even if it came from the Reds.
I repeat that my comments were aimed at *49’s pointless statements, and as such I did not bother to make a full PhD-worth assessment of the current state of Russian industry in light of current financial crisis with special regards to Western European financial needs. I dutifully excuse for this failure not to explain the world in this forum.
–
Russian aviation industry has never produced truly competitive civilian aircrafts since it started to produce any. I agree that special circumstances like requirements (while Boeings also accept -30°C) and especially lack of good engines prevented real good products. But we have to admit that the work that was done at Airbus and Boeing since the mid 70ies (since they are the only airframers developing truly new aircraft, Douglas & Lockheed stopped that in the 70ies) with programs like A310, A320, A330/340, A380 on this side of the Atlantic and B757/767,B777,B747-400,B737NG on the other side of the pond, cannot be duplicated in a matter of years. Tkae a close look and see which Russian airframer last put an aircraft from the drawing board to operation (operation is not first flight) and how long he needed.
The current situation with several airframers (Antonov, Illushyn, Suchoi, Tupolev) having one or two products that sell slow or not at all, at the same time no real project or market outlook, will see the Russian civil aviation industry decline to non-existence in the next 10 years.
The only exception is Suchoi (which is by heritage no civil airframer), who did its homework, designed a state-of-art aircraft, nothing too fancy but OK given the market, accepted Western participation and organized a solid program. That aircraft will sell reasonably and will generate and maintain capabilities at Suchoi.
As for the others, their current products are maybe somewhere competitive (Tu-204&334, Il-96, An-148), but they are so much aimed at markets that are already rock-solid in Western hands, that they don’t really help (look at Embraer, they did it good and exploited a market niche they now own for at least a few years).
The resources of the Russian airframers are not sufficient to keep up with the players in the regional market (Embrear, Bombadier) and definitely not in the big market (airbus, Boeing). Attempts by the state-run OAK to remedy this (Google MS-21) are in my eyes not really thought to the end. Just throwing money at a problem does not necessarily produce results, especially not in aviation.
A devastating blow will funnily be the financial crisis. In the next two years so many used but still useful airliners will flood the market, that no-one sees a point in purchasing a Tu-204 or an Il-96.
SchorschOr even two or three . . . . we had Gloster (did they produce anything worthwhile after the Meteor?), English Electric (Canberra & Lightining), Blackburn (Buccaneer), Hawker (Sea Hawk, Hunter), De Havilland (Vampire, Venom, Sea Vixen), Supermarine (Swift, Scimitar), Saunders-Roe (prototypes . . . ), Vickers (Valiant), Handley Page (Victor, transports), Shorts (transports), Fairey (Gannet), Avro (Vulcan), Folland (Gnat), Bristol (transports). Any I’ve forgotten?
It was as bad in engines & avionics. Too many firms, most of them with too few resources, & the government didn’t help. The armed forces came up with far too many projects, spreading money & designers skills too thinly.
Realistically a country like Britain could ask for a fighter and maybe a fighter-bomber, or something else. The shear number of different designs wasted resources. Just imagine the insane idea of developing 4 different jet bombers and build&operate 3 of them (with 3 different engines).
I chose EE and Hawker Siddeley as they seemed to have most experience.
Actually, the idea of running the aviation companies by the federal government is not that bad, in the end most revenues in the 50ies and 60ies were generated by tax payers money. Only USA could afford to have competition within its own borders, and even they lost quite a few remarkable companies on the way.
Oh, the 60ies, glorious days of aviation.
Schorsch“Well beyond the quoted top speed of the B-52H”? Could you be more specific? As the quoted top speed for the B-52H is 650 mph I’d be interested in hearing what speed you think the A380 was tested to.
I won’t tell you stuff you don’t find on the internet. As you can guess, not all information is destined for the general public. Some knowledge of FAR 25 and you find out yourself easily.
SchorschDon’t wanna get too picky but Russians fielded a larger export order on fighter aircraft with one deal with India that Germans have throughout their whole history.
Not speaking about the fact that if there were not British deals with Saudis and British involvement in the screwed up Gripen deal with Austria, the order book on German aircraft would be a plain zero.
That, too, is real economy. If you desperately need to start a d.ck comparison contest with Russians, take my well-meant piece of advice – don’t even try it with aerospace industry. 😎 What is the last time Germans designed something on their own? HansaJet? or FanTrainer? You really gotta be kiddin me..
Russian gas makes my shower warm, so I don’t mind it. Definitely not.
But I wanted to dispute with *49’s “theories” about the bankrupt Western countries desperately asking for help from mighty Russia.
That Russia is good in selling arms is known and agreed. I never disputed that.
SchorschDear *49 forgot the most interesting news from RIAN:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080922/112924322.html
Russia finds Holy Grail. Plans to rule the world.
So, now we are all* doomed.
——————–
*all excludes people living in Russia.
SchorschWhen virtual economy replaces REAL economy that things start to happen.
Which REAL economy has Russia to offer besides oil & arms?
I see a new A320 fly by my window every other day, since 1st Jan up to this day more civil aircraft than the entire Russian aviation industry has produced in the last 5 years combined. That is real economy.
SchorschWhy can’t UK build it’s own aircraft?
Money.
Various UK Labour governments didn’t want to support the many capable UK defense industries back in the 60s, instead they preferred to think “there won’t be a war” or it was cheaper to import US aircraft than build their own.
After 50 years of that why should they change now?Realistically, new planes are so expensive, why not have a partnership to help spread costs? Common sense.
Besides, they still make money on exports, thike the 72 Typhoons going to Saudi.
I agree that the explanation for the question is the way the British aviation industry went after a hopeful start after WW2. While France consistently invested in its single company (which wasn’t really a company), the British industry more or less shrinked, finally to become BAe. On the way many capabilities were lost, and the knowledge base shrinked.
I think any nation has the ability to develop a reasonably useful fighter, if they have consistently invested in this capability. If you see rather small nations with independent aviation industry, it is normally a single company with a long heritage and continuous funding over well 40 years (see SAAB 35, 37, 39; Mirage III/IV/F-1/2000/Rafale).
If Britain had chosen one “big player” in the 50ies (chosing either Hawker Siddeley or English Electric as basis) and consequently supplied it with project after project, Britain would have a knowledge base today that allowed it to develop its own fighter.
SchorschHow would the TSR-2 fare against modern types if it were to be ‘reborn’?
Not good.
SchorschYes, the EU is very large, but in practical termes is bankrupted, just like USA, printing endless columns of painted paper to try to control the crisis that they unleashed.
While Russia is standing solid on its diverse economy, middle class people and world-known companies …
… or to be more honest, have nothing except for oil and arms.
Price awarded for someone who can point out one Russian export product except for oil and arms, or one Russian company known outside Russia that is not directly connected with either product.
SchorschCanada and US has more or less similar wages depending exchange rate. it is not the case with UKraine/Russia. Gap is increasing every month.
Even Belarus has more wages than UKraine. EU is pretty much done interms of subsidizing other countries. It can only rescue countries from bankruptcy but cannot raise standard of living of other countries without inflicting more pain on itself. Which after current crises is almost impossible.
Because Russia, that has a GDP of about a billion USD, and 120 million people, can basically play ball with EU, which has close to half a billion people and more than 12 billion USD GDP.
That makes sense!
SchorschUkraine is simply not capable of moving Russian Black Sea fleet. Infact Russia is increasing Blacksea fleet. Ukraine is already becoming to Russia what Mexico is to US. U cannot have free borders with sharp wage differences and inflation moving in opposite directions.
Soviet Russia will once rule the world like it once …erhh … never did before.
We will all beg to become a Soviet Socialistic Republic.
The Statue of Freedom will be replaced by a 200m tall Putin memorial (which can puke fire on New York City, by the way).
Sign In
