er, ingestion means, if I’m not wrong, that the bird doesn’t just strike the aircraft but is ingested by the engine… a twin engined aircraft ingesting a bird will possible loose one engine, but will still be able to fly on the other one back to safety, while a single engine aircraft ingesting a bird will loose one engine as well and…. well, the only engine the pilot will use after that is the rocket booster of his nice and shiny martin baker… should be obvious to pretty much everybody around here

Ingestion does not mean the engine will fail nor that the aircraft will be lost, do you seriously think this is not all taken into account in design and proven in testing ?

You have said in your own comment “a twin engined aircraft ingesting a bird will possibly (my correction there) loose one engine” so a twin engined may possibly loose an engine, but a singled engined aircraft is doomed ? This is an issue with any aircraft around the world, do you know how common ingestion and bird strikes are around the world ? How many planes actually crash from it occuring ?

Single engine Vs Twin arguement has been done to death and is sooooo boring, makes no difference how big Canada’s territory is, its just a dumb arguement

Cheers for that guy’s, I never really considered that it was a major issue, just had not really heard anything for some time, so I did assume it was going well, pretty sure we would have heard plenty had it not.

Spud, as I understand it the FCS for the C and associated software is a big step forward ? Do you have any references on where it’s development is at ? IIRC you did post some info some time ago

Thanks

Images Provide Clues to China’s Naval Might

?

[QUOTE=Fedaykin;1923873]Certainly if we want to make it attractive to Australia then we need to demonstrate how the CEA Technologies’ CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT phased array radars can be installed with minimal trouble./QUOTE]

They will have no choice but to show how to incorporate AUSPAR, this is the next gen tech to follow on from CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT, otherwise we would simply not even bother to look at it. Auspar is a joint project between Aus and US (well really more Australian developed tech and the US have jumped on board) which although not specifically documented, will be in the requirements of Sea 5000. I don’t see it as an issue, it would be pretty simple to incorporate into an Aus design.

Here is some info on the project and the white paper that started the process

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html_dec10/sea/Sea5000.html

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/

Cheers

EODAS is 4MP, but that’s still less than the rez of the sensor in your phone.

That’s a little mis-leading there LO, Megapixels taken out of context is not a true defining factor of the system. My wife has an 8mp Iphone, and yet I have a 10 year old 2mp camera that takes far superior pictures. It is not a case of MP’s but what you put infront of the sensor and what you do with the information coming in, it is just a collector, if the system needed more Megapixels to perform do you seriously think they would not buy a heap of Iphone’s and just double the capacity ? Sorry sarcasm moment there 🙂

The cost difference between a 4mp and say a 12, 16 or even 18 is not much different from suppliers

In my work as a consultant, I rely on the aerospace and defence press as one of my sources of information. So inevitably, I have had to assess the veracity of a good number of journalists who report in this field. Over the years, I have read their material and formed my own opinion as to who is generally reliable and who is not.

No journalist is ‘always right and never wrong’, but some clearly have a much better track record than others. However, I would not classify even the ‘also rans’ as “misguided fanatics”.

I think that your views about “keeping it going from a financial and career point of view” are a bit wide of the mark. The only defence journalist I have met who seemed to meet your description of “stay in the public eye, keep getting your face on television programs” was Paul Beaver, but given that he is (or was?) the official spokesman for Jane’s, that was presumably part of his job.

This old academic mole has not been dragged to a TV studio for about two decades (although I had a narrow escape a few months ago). Why the reluctance? Don’t I want to “stay in the public eye, keep getting your face on television programs, keep your name in print and more importantly keep the money”? No I do not. And the reason? Appearances as a ‘talking head’ in a TV news report or documentary do not earn a fee. (The exception probably comes if you are the ‘star’ of a documentary series such as Mary Beard’s excellent series on the ancient Romans.)

The best defence journalists I have had the privilege of knowing have not fitted your prescription of “stay in the public eye, keep getting your face on television programs”. I’m not aware of the late Mark Hewish – probably the best defence journalist of his generation – ever appearing on TV. The only ones that might need to are the freelances. Anyone employed by a magazine will by definition have his name in print and the salary coming in once a month.

Alas, as LowObservable has just told us, the only way of making money in aerospace and defence media is to work in public relations. But to my mind, there is no sadder sight that that of a once-respected defence journalist handing out PR material on a company trade-show stand.

Agree, I was not bundling all Defence Journo’s in the same hat, there are some very good one’s out there, I was reffering more to the extreme edge. Some, as LO pointed out are just mad idiots, Some as I pointed out are driven by other things 🙂 It is an interesting battle to watch, especially in the Defence arena. You have an industry, which is probably one of the biggest marketing machines in the world, going head to head against the likes of LM etc. It is an incredibly intricate dance from two totally different sides of the marketing game

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1171.1.pdf

Clarified in reply to LO, not debating that, but rather capability/operational.

Curious when that was ? could not find a date on it ? Although I do not debate/deny this, I don’t see it as a big issue. That is the thing about Public programmes, they are easy to pull apart and nitpick, this is how it works in all forms of developing new tech. In the private sector you don’t see any of the things come to light such as cost over run, slippage, reduction in specs or even scope creep.

Buy a new car, how much did it cost ? How much do you think it could have been when they originally developed the concept ? How much money do every single one of us pay every single day of our lives for the very things in that report because of errors, re-designs etc ?

People are clueless about them, yet it is a bigger problem and cost’s much much more than any of this ever will. All we know as consumers is this is the new product/model and this is the price, no clue about what has happened behind the scenes, they have no accountability, think about it ?

Rant over 🙂