Spitfire9DELETED
Spitfire9There is no vacuum. There is no need for Western leadership. For the vast majority of “The West” there are no vital interests at stake in Libya – not politically, not economically and not in terms of human rights. Whomever wins will be willing to sell oil. And most of the combat is between armed fighters not civilians.
Not impotent, just careful and thoughtful about intervening in a foreign country which could certainly develop into a quagmire via mission creep and where the people don’t care about us or for us at all!
And don’t fall for the propaganda about “civilian” victims. Most of the people dying are armed and willing combatants.
The government forces have a legal right to attack the rebel army – it’s not a war crime.
The regime has made it clear that it will treat any opponents on which it can get its hands with unrestrained savagery. There are credible reports of Gaddafi’s non-Libyan mercenaries appearing in vehicles at demonstrations and opening fire on the civilian (not “civilian” as you put it) demonstrators. Such acts are likely to be judged as crimes against humanity and those who gave such orders to be guilty thereof (ie all in the regime advocating/supporting such acts).
I think that any execution or torture of combatants who have surrendered lays the perpetrators open to conviction for war crimes. I would be extremely surprised if this is not happening.
It is strange that foreign powers have not intervened decisively against a dictator whose policies and actions have antagonised them so much and for so long.
Spitfire9Earlier reports indicated the mmrca shortlisted companies will be allowed 6 months to submit their offset proposals.None of them have submitted their offsets yet.Add to that the price negotiations.
So I dont see how this will be resolved before the ACM’s retirement in July.
So far the selection process has run for several years without any selection having been made. Even if selection were made today and price negotiations and TOT negotiations were conducted in parallel starting today, it is inconceivable that those would be complete with contracts drawn up by July IMO.
Spitfire9Something get my atention on the last informative from boing, they are saying that exists a clausule in the proposal of 5% penalty of the contract value for every time an TOT is requested and it is denied from congress.
It is a lot of money IMO, and if you start thinking this could lead to a 50% descount on the packge or even 100% ( just 20 denied requests )
That’s an interesting idea but who pays the 5% penalty? Can’t be Boeing – every time the customer requests something that Boeing would be happy to provide, but cannot due to Congress, Boeing has to pay? Boeing would be insane to put themselves in such a position.
It would have to a contract where the US government agreed to pay a penalty to a foreign power every time it did not do what that foreign power wanted. That’s not how the US government works: it wants to control what other countries do, not have them control what it does.
Spitfire9Eurofighter are rightly trying to separate T3A from the future of the project, in that they are making it clear that additional future development is available to buyers outside of Europe. This undermines the argument that future Typhoon production is tied to the Partner nations.
I think the partner countries have been screwing up Eurofighter chances on the world market for years. The reluctance to commit to funding increased functionality (that they would be funding at a later stage anyway) has left Eurofighter in a position where they have been trying to secure export sales with an aircraft that is not fully functional (eg A2G functionality).
I can’t really see export customers wanting to pay for developing CFT’s, thrust vectoring, weapons integration, whatever… that the partner nations would be paying for anyway – albeit later. Typhoon is already the most expensive of the twin engined fighters. Asking export customers to pay even more to subsidise the partner nations is unrealistic IMO.
Spitfire9You’re assuming an honest & monolithic government, not one influenced by numerous sectional interests, with empire-building civil servants & independent-minded politicians with their own power bases & agendas, i.e. you’re assuming a government very different from that of India.
Correct in what you say.
How long will it take for India to clean its act up? Or any chance of those without power ousting the corrupt sooner than they suspect? This seems to be a popular activity at the moment in a number of countries.
Spitfire9Brazilian] Defense Minister Nelson Jobim said today (Feb. 22) that President [Dilma] Rousseff will decide on the acquisition of fighter jets for the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) “at the time she considers opportune.”
We will have clear picture after OBAMA’s Brazil visit next month..
From the link:
During the meeting with the French Minister, Jobim reiterated the condition set by Brazil that requires the transfer of aircraft technology and the building up of national capabilities. Jobim has expressed the view that the competition involving the fighter is not just a simple purchase of military equipment, but the purchase by Brazil of a technology package that will allow the country to increase its sovereign development in this field. “Price is important but more important is national capability,” he said.
The USA is the least able to guarantee tech transfer IMO so I would put SH last on that score. Not even Obama can guarantee that according to my understanding of the US system of approval of military materiel exports.
Spitfire9I suspect this is a consequence of the state-designed, state-built model. There is no profit to the DRDO, the MoD, or the IAF in exporting, as any revenues go direct to government coffers.
1 DRDO, MOD, IAF and HAL are funded by GOI. GOI can instruct them to do whatever it chooses
2 Most governments seek to develop high tech industry rather than low tech industry where it is possible
3 Any increase in economic activity leads to increased government revenues through increased workers’ personal income tax revenues and increased goods and services sales tax revenues when workers buy goods and services
Looking ahead to 2020+ when F-16 will almost certainly have ceased production, few of those needing F-16 replacements will be buying the planned low cost LM follow-on product (F-35) because its price has ballooned way past that of F-16. If Tejas Mk3 (Kaveri) comes out right, is there any reason it should not sell 500/1000/1500 ex-India at say $40 million each in today’s dollars? Just 500 would net near $20 billion in foreign exchange for India (before spares and other services are included) and a lot of extra income tax for GOI from those involved.
Spitfire9mrmalaya, I believe Saudi Arabia have been interested in purchasing a second lot of Typhoons for a while, even before they took delivery of their initial few – if I remember correctly another 70+ Typhoons. Its rather “nice timing” since Eurofighter are pushing hard for the MMRCA deal and not to mention discussions going on with Oman and Qatar…It’ll be a canny share of sales for India if they choose the Typhoon. *wink-wink*
True, India could be in a position to build Typhoons for export. India’s position on high tech weapons production baffles me, however. After investing $billions over 20+ years to develop a fast jet industrial capability with the LCA program, India appears to adopt the extraordinary attitude that leveraging this investment to bring the industrial and technological benefits of increased production through exports is of little interest. Is the GOI not interested in supporting high tech, high value added exports?
As for the Navalised Typhoon for the UK. The only way they’d choose this type for the RN is if India does IMO. I think the UK might be interested, but don’t want to be the only ones dishing money out for it since they’re the only user of the type with Aircraft Carriers capable of operating the type from. If India chooses the Typhoon and decides to operate the Naval version from IN Aircraft Carriers, then I believe the UK and India could partner up and develope the type together, share the cost and all.
IIRC one of the reasons that France left the “New European Fighter” consortium was that it needed a design suited to navalisation but the other members of the consortium thought otherwise ie Typhoon was not designed with adaptation for carrier operation in mind. Navalisation of Typhoon would therefore be far more expensive than it would otherwise have been.
What design input could India offer on navalising the the Typhoon? India has needed to call in outside expertise to navalise the Tejas, hasn’t it?
‘In a deal that could be worth billions of dollars and determine one of the primary fighter jets in Asia for decades to come, European aircraft makers are trying to convince Japan to do something it has never done before _ snub America.’
‘U.S. planes have long been Tokyo’s overwhelming favorite, but Japan appears to be wobbling under a strong sales pitch for the Eurofighter Typhoon, coupled with problems and restrictions that have made the American alternatives less attractive.’
Sounds promising for Typhoon. IIRC Japan’s indigenous F-2 fighter production is winding down. Typhoon would provide ongoing work for the sector. Additionally, it seems to be the closest in performance to the F-22, which is what Japan would ideally like to buy, but cannot.
Spitfire9Hurricane had more kills during the Battle of Brittain though so it was the better fighter at that point .
Not really. The number of Hurricanes in service during the Battle of Britain exceeded the number of Spitfires by about 2:1 and whereas the kill ratio for the Spitfire against opposing Me109’s was 1.8:1, the Hurricane’s was 1.34:1
http://www.aviationclassics.co.uk/news/issue-6-battle-of-britain-spitfire-or-hurricane
Spitfire9did not know Brasil is going for a 60,000 carrier. Does this mean they wanna sell Fock to the Argies? :diablo:
Isn’t there going to be a spare RN carrier in a few years? Someone ought to pass the UK Ministry of Defence phone number onto Brazil. Why wait until 2027 for a new carrier when there may be one available at a giveaway price 10 years earlier?
well, some Gripen supporters would say “Hey what about Sea Gripen!?”
but right now its a paper plane.
SAAB would have 15 years to get it developed and delivered if a carrier were to enter service in 2027.
Minister Jobim continues to say that the indication of the airplane winner will be announced until July by President Dilma. In 2013 the Navy will purchase 24 units of the same aircraft, but in version shipped to equip a new aircraft carrier of 60,000 tons it plans to incorporate between 2027 and 2031 – the flagship of the projected 2. th Fleet in the Amazon estuary..
I don’t understand why one would place an order in 2013 for 24 aircraft suitable for aircraft carrier operations starting 2027. When would they be delivered: 2024/2025? Perhaps they would be used as land-based fighters alongside the non-carrier variant until the carrier became available?
Spitfire9… i think AMCA can compete well with F-35 on export if you can get it somewhat inducted at 2020 …
If there are thoughts of exporting AMCA (stupid not to think of exporting it IMO), India will need to convince potential customers that it can provide adequate product support. Best way to do that is to export Tejas first, identify shortfalls in support, sort them out and establish a track record of competence in this domain. It is much easier to convince a potential customer that you will be able to provide adequate product support if you can demonstrate that you are already providing it for a similar product (fast jet).
My suggestion: get Tejas Mk2 sorted as quickly as possible (preferably with a suitable JV engine) and get some small export orders. There will be support problems to sort out. Use 2 or 3 small orders to learn how to support a fast jet made in India but operated by air forces thousands of miles away.
Spitfire9I can think too. 😀 But the “our” in my previous message was in fact a malapropism for “your”. Speculation irritates the Cartesian part of me, so this is the kind of exercise I find more enjoyable as a spectator than an actor.
But I’m sure you’ll find someone to play the ball, unless you were just trying to be provocative. 😉
Malentendu, mon pote! I was not talking about Dassault… If you are not aware of it, RAF Typhoon T1 aircraft will not be upgraded to T3 (IIRC) standard due to the prohibitive cost.
The UK spent perhaps $5 billion on T1 Typhoons that can’t be viably upgraded so will be retired/sold. Brilliant! Only the military and government can throw money away on this scale. I suppose I ought to be fair to the banks and include them too.
Link: http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2902&thisSection=military
Spitfire9A new competition for keeping our speculation skills to the top in those cold winter evenings (in this hemisphere at least): Bulgaria seeks 8 (yes, eight) aircraft for 500,000,000 euros. Competitors are the same as MMRCA’s, but second hand buys are an option.
Faites vos jeux!
I think I know where they could get 8 second hand aircraft that have the advantage of no annoying upgrade costs after 10-15 years because the cost of that would be prohibitive. 🙂
Spitfire9Regarding rhe refuelling by drogue, IMO the Canadians really should have thought about that a little earlier (unless it was planned and has since been dropped).
Regarding the drogue parachute, my sentiments are the same (unless the landing run distance was increased by LM).
.
Should the canadians have taken all this into account or should LM have?
If you pay loads of money for such a development, would you expect the manufacturer to pencil in your local requirements or should you agree to build new airfields, buy new tanker planes, use special concrete on the landing patches for the F-35B type… or would you expect the designer to take all these “environmental restrictions ” into account?
I think that before becoming a partner the Canadians should have specified:
(a) drogue refuelling system required
(b) maximum landing run
I thought that the Navy had already found that the engine for an F35 did not fit in its COD planes, when the engines were in their transport boxes…
Did anyone specify this as a requirement to the engine designers? Perhaps someone did but it would have compromised engine performance.
LM, too, should have checked that the aircraft would meet all customer requirements as far as it could IMO.
In reality, I can’t believe that Canada forgot to check that the JSF would be incompatible with its tankers.
Sign In
