Spitfire9In what way, exactly?
You were asking what advantage Britain gained by not adopting the euro. Answer: sovereignty over interest rates. There is one interest rate set for the entire euro zone. Inevitably, the interest rate set by the European Central Bank is too high for some national economies and too low for others. Britain’s central bank can set interest rates tailored to suit the needs of the British economy.
Spitfire9Naval Tejas doing its ground engine runs. 🙂 first flight expected soon 🙂
Picture courtesy Chacko Joseph from Frontier India. Read the full article here
LCA Naval Prototype completes first Engine ground Run
PS : Just look at those legs 🙂
I have lost track. Outside consultancy was talked of to optimise the undercarriage. Is the aircraft being engine-tested a version with the original u/c design (adding avoidable weight to the aircraft) or has the u/c been optimised? Anyone know, please?
Spitfire9Aren’t you forgetting Japan in the 1930s and 1940s?
Yes and no. IIRC the Japanese high command believed that Japan would lose if they went to war with the USA but they were subject to the decisions of the government.
The British Commonwealth is simply a collection of nations once ruled, long ago, by Britain. Its relevance to the real politic of 2011 is pretty much zero, with little in the way of common cultural and economic interests to give it any real life. If some of those nations are cooperating now, its because of current day economic and strategic interests.
I’m not suggesting an aggressor would be quaking in his boots at the thought of invoking the ire of the British Commonwealth but the notion that other members of the organisation would not react strongly to invasion and occupation of one of its most important members is misguided, I think. I would see other member states agreeing sanctions against the invader, a boycott of trade and pressurising the UN for a military response along the lines of what happened in Korea.
Spitfire9Agreed! Good relations now doesn’t mean things won’t change in the future, especially considering India and China will become ever more determined to obtain resources, and Australia has lots of natural resources.
If you can buy the natural resources you desire, why would you want to spend vast amounts on conquering the country supplying you? Should any major power ever wage war successfully against Australia and occupy the country, I think the diplomatic backlash would be extremely severe. Members of the little old British Commonwealth would be duty bound to make commercial and diplomatic life as difficult as possible for the invader. The UN would not be too pleased either.
Spitfire9Well it’s a compromise when you’re facing with Political situation that’s hostile with outright privatization of government entities. Some country facing with only limited number of Defense Industry that, politically the Politician want’s them all still on the hand of Government control.
Made them transparent and responsible to market economy while still under Government control is not the most ideal way, but again it’s a compromise.
I can understand that outright privatisation of government entities may be a political impossibility. I wonder though how able GOI would be (not noted for doing things quickly or efficiently, is it?) at controlling the Indian defence industry in a beneficial manner. What expertise can GOI offer to make the defence industry transparent and responsible to the market economy? Has Air India been made transparent and responsible to the market economy? GOI controls Air India, doesn’t it?
Spitfire9Despite our PM’s reformist credentials his government is just as Socialist as it is reformist; if they are willing to pump in Rs3000cr per year of taxpayer money for 10 years to keep Air India alive they’ll only think of privatizing their Defence PSUs(which make huge profits owing to their monopolly and funnel that money back into the Union Government) when pigs fly.:D
I’m not quite sure how useful it is for a state owned company with a monopoly to make huge profits if the customer for the goods / services sold is the state. Eg let’s imagine HAL makes huge monopoly-based profits assembling aircraft for the IAF. It follows that the Defence Ministry is paying a higher price than it needs to pay for the aircraft assembled by HAL. That is a bizarre way to run a defence contractor – there is zero incentive for the contractor to become more efficient.
Spitfire9interesting article from the DEWline blog which is related to this competition:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
In short, wikileaks has released US doubts about the ability of the Indian Defence sector to effectivly partner on an advanced fighter (i think).
If true the report shows yet again how lacking India is in organising things properly. It goes like this: you screw up on ordering enough parts to keep your in service aircraft in service (eg flying), nick bits from kits for new aircraft, thereby screwing up Hawk production, then when asked what the hell you are doing, you kick out the people who know how to do things properly and blame them for the delay you created through your own incompetence!
I despise that sort of incompetence and in particular dishonest irresponsibility (It’s your fault, not mine, isn’t it? Remember who is paying who before answering…) be it in India, the US, UK or elsewhere.
Spitfire9The Typhoon; yet again an attractive offer, versatile, capable, great performance/agility especially at hot & high altitudes, huge BVR abilities, not cheap but it does come with a lot of offers, likely offers such as partnership in the Eurofighter programme, ToT, R&D etc…
I don’t see how buying ten or twenty Typhoons qualifies you for partnership unless it’s very token partnership. What would Malaysia bring to the party?
Spitfire9As Malaysia scouts for fifth-generation replacement jet fighters for its ageing fleet,
Fifth generation?
The MRCA programme is to replace the 16 Russian MiG-29N Fulcrums purchased in 1995. What are your thoughts?
I think they would get a very nice deal from the UK government: “Want to replace 16 Fulcrums? As it happens we have 16 Typhoons surplus to requirements. In fact we were planning to throw them away in a few years, so they’ll cost next to nothing. Would next week be quick enough for you?”
Spitfire9What M2K upgrade has been done for 1 billion less (or proportionate per plane) than the price Dassault/Thales/HAL agreed to? How you are you so sure that the ´fair´ price is 1 billion less? I´m not advocating for the upgrade necessarily being the best approach, but I don´t see why the price is some ´cheat´. In collaboration with HAL, Dassault was able to lower the price signifigantly. Some things just happen to be expensive… That can be a reason not to buy them, but that doesn´t change that they really are just expensive.
Sorry, when I said a billion more on one contract can be used to drop the price by a billion on another, I should have made it clear that I was talking in general, not saying the M2K’s upgrade price has been inflated by a billion.
Spitfire9I think Dassault were in a position to charge a high price on the M2K upgrade. Who else made M2K’s? I also see that a billion extra on one contract where there is no alternative to buying from the OEM can be used to reduce the price on another contract where there is an alternative. However the cost for Rafale was submitted before the M2K contract was signed, wasn’t it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but if that is the case, then Dassault took a big, big risk if they submitted a Rafale price to be subsidised by “inflated” profit from the M2K upgrade.
Spitfire9The first contract for 18 F-16 was signed in 2005 by then Defence Minister Jaime Ravinet, involving 185 million US dollars. The fighters had an average 3.500 flight hours.
What’s the life in hours of an F-16?
Spitfire9I think they’ll build up a helicopter force of Mi-171s, light recon/training aircraft, then look for some cheap multi-role fighters.
It would be interesting to see F16 versus Gripen.
Spitfire9The CAG report does more justice to the Kaveri project than your vitriol laced diatribe. Decade old brochure? Now since you love to quote Ajai Shukla’s article which does not mention any source as de facto state of the program in 2009, corroborate it with DRDO scientists quote in 2008 and chose to draw your own conclusions without searching for official quotes and press statements then its your choice. Check this out for your love of “statements by GTRE scientists”
PS : Its from Aug 17th 2011.
I read that little snippet from The Times of India. It opens with this:
So what if it cannot power fighter jets as of now, it’s perfectly suitable for combat drones, warships and possibly even trains! Or, so the never-say-die Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) is now proclaiming as far as its Kaveri engine is concerned.
That is nonsense. The engine would never be “perfectly suitable” for trains.
Either misreported nonsense or DRDO nonsence.
DRDO officials say the Kaveri aero-engine, which incidentally is over 22 years in the making by now with a sanctioned cost of Rs 2,893 crore, can power unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) because they “do not require the kind of higher thrust” needed for the indigenous Tejas LCA (light combat aircraft).
Shame the DRDO official did not mention that they were tasked to develop an 80kN engine to power the LCA but lack of proper LCA specification planning (and failure to meet weight targets?) meant that the LCA thrust requirement changed rendering it unsuitable for the application for which it was being developed. In other words, the effort expended on Kaveri was an entire waste of time and money. Or would have been had this not been the first foray into creating such an engine, leading to an invaluable gain in expertise and experience.
“Nine prototypes of Kaveri engine and four prototypes of Kaveri Core (Kabini) engines have been developed with over 2,000 hours of testing…the engine is proven with almost 80 kilonewtons (kN) of thrust now, which is enough for our UCAVs (Tejas requires 90 kN),” said an official.).
Not knowing much about these things, I need to ask if someone there would be kind enough to tell me:
What dry thrust level has been achieved?
How does the sfc (dry and wet) compare with other contemporary engines? An 80kN engine that burns so much fuel that range is severely curtailed is not as useful as one that does not have that problem.
How long between major overhauls compared with other engines?
Spitfire9The question is not whether GTRE can build better engine with access to better materials.. but whether GTRE can get access to material tech from JV, which NO COMPANY would like to part with the alloy expertise built over the years, as it will harm their business interests in long term.
If the 80KN Kaveri hit a brick wall through lack of indigenous alloy expertise, why didn’t GTRE design whatever components that were needed in the special materials concerned and ask for quotes to make those components in the special materials concerned? That way GTRE would have got what they wanted and supplier would have retained their alloy expertise.
If a 90KN engine is now required, why can’t they still do that? Why is a JV required?
Sign In
