dark light

MigL

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 180 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Future Franco-German MPA #2147994
    MigL
    Participant

    IIRC between 2000 and 2010, Italy and Germany did some studies on replacing their Atlantics ( MPA 2000), but nothing came out of it.
    Italy had a requirement for 14 aircraft at the time.
    They have recently acquired 4 ATR-72 MP aircraft for maritime patrol.
    Do they still need another 10, possibly of differing capabilities and roles ?

    Along with the previously mentioned Canadian requirement, if France and Germany take the right approach, the market may not be limited to just their own armed forces.
    A European option would be a good thing.
    I believe Canada has joined the M3A forum, which previously included France, Germany, Italy,Greece, Spain, Poland and Turkey.

    in reply to: Future Franco-German MPA #2149227
    MigL
    Participant

    Well, now that the squabbling has died down…
    Personally I would prefer a MPA based on the Airbus/Bombardier C series.
    The base package might then also interest Canada, which is also looking to replace its C-140 Auroras in the ASW/MPA role.
    I believe they are looking for 14 aircraft.

    MigL
    Participant

    So much for Boeing protecting their ‘interests’ by using the big stick of the government in their trade war with Bombardier/Canada.
    They were just bent over and made Airbus’ bitch again.
    ( see Airbus- Bombardier deal )

    As usual Canadian taxpayers are the losers in all these dealings.
    But at least now we can get on with trying to select a new combat aircraft.

    in reply to: USAF T-X #2143502
    MigL
    Participant

    Sure, but Leonardo DSR is headed up by the second highest ranking civilian in the Pentagon during the Obama administration.
    I’m sure he knows the ins and outs of procurement ( and has contacts among Air Force brass ) as well, or better than LM or Boeing.

    The T-100 in M346 guise, is already training pilots for the F-35s of Israel, Italy and the Dutch, along with its excellent CAE ground based emulators.

    They will build a plant in Alabama for parts and final assembly, while the Boeing entry will have some parts and a section of the airframe built in Sweden ( not St Louis ).

    It is a proven system with none of the unforeseen development headaches which may accompany the Boeing design and training system intergration.

    And the CEO of KAI was arrested yesterday, I believe.

    Couple this with the fact that D Trump is constantly stressing value for the money, and I think Leonardo’s chances are much better than 0.001%.

    in reply to: USAF T-X #2143845
    MigL
    Participant

    Seems that chances are fairly equal between the big three of LM/KAI, Boeing/SAAB and Leonardo.

    After the drawn out development of the F-35, maybe the trainer competition is not the place to open another ‘can of worms’.
    A new design may be a disadvantage for Boeing/SAAB ( no matter how much we like the design ) compared to tried/ tested submissions by LM/KAI and Leonardo.
    But with the smell of corruption about KAI now lingering in the air ( although Leonardo has that odor in its past also ), the sure bet of the LM/KAI submission is now also in question.
    The Leonardo entry, with possible performance shortcomings and being seen as ‘foreign’ ( are SAAB and KAI domestic ? ), is an established solution with several air forces.
    I would not bet against any of the three.

    The other two ‘entries’ have multiple short comings and aren’t even in contention.
    And all may be moot depending on budget considerations.

    in reply to: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program #2148411
    MigL
    Participant

    ‘Bankrupt Eastern EU’ ??
    I wonder how they got that way ?

    Did it have anything to do with Russia’s raping and pillaging for over 40 yrs ?

    in reply to: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program #2151276
    MigL
    Participant

    I’m glad you still have the fortitude to participate in the forum, Spudman.
    I have always respected your posts.

    I don’t know how I’d handle the ‘krap’ you’ve gone through.
    Hang in there and be strong.

    in reply to: USAF T-X #2145072
    MigL
    Participant

    Damn shame.
    The Leonardo T-100 is a proven, advanced training system, and the US could do much worse than picking it as their new training system.
    BUT, its not shiny and new like the Boeing, and, us being plane geeks, we all like new.

    Incidentally, didn’t Boeing have an agreement with Alenia/aermacchi to market the M-346 about 10 yrs ago ?

    in reply to: USAF T-X #2154892
    MigL
    Participant

    Say Boeing wanted to add an F414 engine, single seat/more fuel, and full avionics suite to their baby, making it a direct competitor to the Gripen, what do you think would be SAAB’s reaction ?

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2134985
    MigL
    Participant

    Ground invasion, MSpere ?

    I live in Canada, a separate continent having the longest unguarded border next door to the nation with the most powerful armed forces in the world, so I gotta ask…
    What ground invasion !!!

    We need an air force to intercept a few Russian bombers that wonder into our airspace, and for expeditionary peace keeping, almost always in support of the Americans.
    Stop trying to make OUR requirements fit YOUR choice of combat aircraft !

    It will be multi-role ( all the contenders with possible exception of Typhoon ), as large as we can afford in the required numbers ( Gripen is a little small ), and American ( so no Rafale either ). That leaves F-35 and SuperHornet ( which is at the end of its life in terms of further development ).

    That leaves but one contender so the choice should be clear.
    The fact that the government went with the 2nd best choice has to do with face saving politics, is all ( to get back on topic ).

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2135631
    MigL
    Participant

    The SuperHornets and/or F-35s will be flying out of the same bases where the current CF-18 are.
    There is no requirement for dispersed operations ( thanks for asking why Canada would be interested in such, Levsha ).

    Any logistic footprint smaller or equal to the CF-18’s is acceptable.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2136869
    MigL
    Participant

    You guys need a prescription for Ritalin to control your Attention Deficit Disorder.
    This is a thread about the Canadian fighter replacement/procurement.

    We have discussed the range of the Gripen, a plane which WILL NOT be acquired by Canada, until that discussion was split off.
    We are now discussing the radar and engines of the Rafale, another plane which WILL NOT be acquired by Canada.

    I suppose next week we’ll discuss the Typhoon.
    And maybe a few Russian and Chinese contenders, which, and I repeat ( again ), WILL NOT be bought by Canada.

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2138336
    MigL
    Participant

    About 50 F-22, that is exactly what we need.
    Unfortunately, that’ll never happen either.

    We’ll either get a full fleet of SuperHornets, sole source/no competition, or a mixed fleet with F-35s ( if Trudeau doesn’t mind a little egg on his face ).

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2139208
    MigL
    Participant

    Busses are very simple.
    Older style busses use a parallel configuration, so 1553 is equivalent to the older parallel ATA standard for personal computers.
    Remember a few years back when your personal computer switched to SATA ? A serial, high speed communication standard which first doubled and then quadrupled the data rate ? All with similar error correction capability, parity checking and redundancy ?
    That’s what the newer serial busses bring to the table.
    .
    Canada has low educational standards JSR ?
    We developed a world beating interceptor in the 50s, which was considered by the USAF and RAF, with engines that could take it to M2.5.
    A lot of the engineers that worked on the Arrow went to work for NASA and the manned moon missions in the 60s after its politically motivated cancellation.
    Most of the countries you mention that are high achievers can’t even build light planes yet. Even China has difficulty with 70s technology engines.

    Incidentally I earned a BSc in Physics and Math ( probably the only person here who can explain GR and QFT to you ) through the Canadian education system ( except for grades 1-4 which I attended in Italy, my birth country ).
    How about you ???

    in reply to: Canadian Fighter Replacement #2139908
    MigL
    Participant

    And don’t we already have a Gripen thread in which its performance can be discussed ?
    It will never be bought by Canada !

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 180 total)