Nice!

Monetary creation will not solve anyone’s financial issues, history teaches us this. You risk hyperinflation, which is obviously disastrous and at the very least your credit rating, which is already very uncertain for France.

You risk overinflation IF & only if the country is run by incompetents or criminals. As it is our debt is going over the top because of the very system. There isn’t even a question of good or bad management. The very monetary system creates unlimited debt.

Unfortunately, I suspect France is next to join the PIIGS countries. 🙁

Obviously it won’t be the UK or the US, although their debt situation is even worse than France’s. Hopefully for the UK, they’re not in the Euro 😉

BTW I’m tired of reading brits saying we shouldn’t pull out of the Euro. Join the bloody thing if it’s so beneficial.

I should think it is in the French defence industry’s best interests to partner projects with various countries, at least this gives some stability.

Yeah. And the french industry managed to create a plane (Rafale) that’s just as good as the Typhoon (better) while remaining cheaper. What does it tell you about partnering with other nations as opposed to doing it alone?

I think our countries working together on defence projects is great, and long may it continue 🙂

I hope the real crisis & collapse comes soon before this BS is gone too far.

Nic

Nic, are you actually worried that the US would get to see the best French technology?

Is that what you think?

You clearly believe the UK aviation industry is no more and will sell out to the US, so logically BAE is totally transparent to the US right?

I agree that France should join Greece and the like and lead the project.

to my mind its more a question of what Sweden choose to do:)

No. I’m worried that once Dassault gets their hands tied in joint-this and joint-that, our treacherous government will, as a cost saving/rationalisation measure force them to buy parts of the future aircrafts from Europe, and the french industry’s capability to make a war plane from A to Z will slowly disappear, making us dependent on our so-called allies. Once we will only be a piece of an anglo saxon defense clusterfneb of the biggest order, and french independance and sovereignty is slowly going to disappear.

Some politicians are already talking about cancelling our nuclear deterrence.

Cancelling our nuclear deterrence + making our defense industry reliant on “partners” is how you destroy the french nation and make it an obedient vassal.

Nic

Have to agree with this sentiment. France would be much better served pairing with Brazil (and/or Turkey if they weren’t already tied up with Sweden). Less of a ‘who controls what’ pissing match, and those nations would be more committed to the program given that it would be part of their broader national transformation.

FEFA broke down for a reason. Whilst the incentive for France to compromise may have increased since then (i.e. can’t afford to go it alone) the reasons for not partnering with the UK (total incoherence in procurement and relation to national-strategic strategy, lack of commitment to Typhoon) have also been clearly and recently demonstrated.

What the UK should do … who knows? You have to have some kind of coherent national-strategic picture to even begin to answer the question.

I agree 100%

IMO France should be partnering with India, Brazil and Russia.

Nic

🙁

Nic,

I didn’t deny that the MoD is run by idiots, or that HM treasury wants to gut the UK armed forces at every available opportunity, I simply said that they often do buy British when they can, even when it means we pay more and get less.

No I’m not saying they are idiots, I am saying that they are traitors to your country. In all the years on this forum I have seen the Brits blame all the (numerous) stupid decisions of the british Mod on sheer incompetence and on the short-sightedness of politicians who think more of their next reelection than to their country. It is scary enough to be run by incompetents, but I don’t believe this is the truth. And this whole argumentation repeated here ad nauseum is a bit facile. I am of the opinion that you are run by traitors who pledged allegiance to the US who one might add aren’t run in the best interest of the american people. Such levels of consistency in sheer incompetence aren’t possible unless it is actually made on purpose.

Every decision taken by the Mod is always aimed at crippling the UK’s defense and sovereignty just enough that it needs the support of the US for whatever policies they want to undertake. So that they continue to behave like a good puppet.

Sarkozy has done the very same thing during his term. And France is on the same path lately. I’m appalled at the defense cooperation that was decided between the UK and France because we are going to be dragged into US puppetery (as if we were not enough) faster than Yul Bryner had a haircut.

In all honesty, what do you expect the ordinary man on the street to do when the politician who are the only ones who could effect and change are universally incompetent and ignorant with regard to defense issues?

When you’s guys are going to understand it’s not incompetence but treason, then I guess you’re going to revolt. Just like we will be forced to do here.

The times ahead will be very troubled in all of Europe.

Nic

Everywhere I looked I found 18400kg for MKI.
I am not saying that is the right weight, but that was the only weight I could find till now.

I ignored your post because you gave link where some forum member (unknown to me) said that SU-35S weights 18400, and then you gave the link for his source “Mob Wiki” where we have 19000 tones for empty weight.

Yes I know, but he was talking about some modernization and did he gave the link for MKI empty weight?

If you are right, 2 tons more compared to baseline SU-27 is very, very disappointing (sustained and unsustained turning rates, POST STALL region excluded, will suffer greatly from such increase in weight), but only 800kg difference between MKI and S is very unrealistic to me.

I think you can’t as you did in a earlier post, just assume that the Su35S structure wasn’t strenthened more than the Su30’s because you didn’t see a point.

Secondly your point about the electronics weighting less could be offset by a few factors:
1: balast to avoid issues of center of gravity, or to make room for future planned equipment
2: maybe each piece of equipment is lighter, but maybe there have been more equipment inside. True for a given performance equiment will decrease in weight, but you may also want increased performance requiring more hardware, or compensating for the loss of weight.
3: Use of more titanium and other materials to increase service life to 6000 hours / 30 years
4: addition of RAM materials to reduce RCS which should have a weight right?

This article gives a hint about increased weight:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15220:sukhoi-begins-flight-testing-of-su-35s-variant&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107

Structurally, the Su-35S features more titanium to increase service life to 6 000 flight hours/30 years of operation, with 1 500 hours or ten years between overhauls. The airframe was also strengthened to handle the increased takeoff and landing weight of the aircraft – the nose landing gear has also been strengthened for the same reason, and now features two wheels.

Nic