Whats Taranis getting?, EJ200 or Ardour?.

IIRC “Taranis UCAV is about the size of a hawk”, so the Ardour could be a good fit!. hmmmm the EJ200 seems a bit of overkill.

cheers

No, not if Boeing funds the basic research.

Hmm IIRC thats what the problem was.. OK if Boeing shoulder the costs but if the USAF/NASA give Boeing a contract to build test airframes/prototypes for a military aircraft, and they use this as the basis for the commercial side.

This is supposed to circumvent illegal subsidies… that and Tax offsets in certain states, VS Airbus’s Government loans at favourable rates.

I think thats the heart of it, but I’m willing to be corrected if its wide of the mark.

Now Airbus are going to be in the USA does that mean the US WTO action is basically suing itself???.:)

cheers

So by your own logic it would be just as true that the reason europe had to come to the US for a Harrier replacement is because they were incapable of producing a replacement themselves. Makes perfect sense.

Yup your quite correct, the reasons may be ever so slightly different but the basic premise is the same.

Consensus, budgets, political will, are the main problems in Europe, developing a stovl aircraft would be a very low priority for a European consortium, 6th gen UCAVs are the flavour of the month over there, given the costs involved So ‘yes’ Europe is incapable of producing a quality manned stovl in the foreseeable future.

The hissyfit/backlash in the states surprises me, would they overturn a deal and be willing to trade a step down (by some accounts a large step) in capability just to say it was made here??.

Thats cutting your nose off to spite your face, but it will be very interesting to see politicians walk that particular tightrope.

cheers

OK I’ll say it – I seriously believe Boeing is incapable of producing a tanker that the USAF needs.

No, Boeing is not “incapable” of producing the airplane that the USAF wants. They are producing an airplane either smaller or larger than what the USAF wants. The -330 based variant is in a sweet spot and offering abilities that Boeing is not.

Exactly
The proof is in the pudding, Boeing did not have a suitable aircraft, The US can’t afford an all new design either in time or money, so in the absence of new money or a longer time scale Boeing are incapable of designing a new tanker for the USAF.:)

Now as for the argument that Boeing can’t make a good tanker is childish, some reports are already available saying that the NG/Eads offering wiped the floor with the 767 in all the main areas, and this would seem to be correct as I doubt that NG/Eads would have got the contract if it was at all close.

I really don’t need to get over it..:cool: I’m OK with EADs making the USAF new Tanker, I’m not too sure the same can be said for many in the USA – So suck it in and toughen up princesses…

Its really easy, Boeing couldn’t provide the right aircraft, if they were capable of producing it then why didn’t they?.

BTW I happen to think the USAF made the right choice as they are getting an excellent capability, and transatlantic cooperation is the way forward..

TTFN

When was the last time Australia built anything of consequence Johnny?

Oh I don’t know how about the Bionic ear, Black box flight recorders, Traffic lights, the hills hoist!!, or that great American icon the Ute:).

Come on its just like ‘lend lease’ and there no shame in not being able to produce whats needed, you sold us what we needed in WWII, now its Europes turn to return the favour.

Europe’s there to lean on – in your hour of need.

Uh, the US could have produced what it wanted, it just so happened that the Northrop/EADS proposal was a better offer.

Yes thats certianly one way of looking at it.. I alluded to lend lease, ie during the war the allies could have built aircraft/tanks etc but the quality wouldn’t have been the same as those sold by the US due to the fact that those actually fighting in the war industrial base was a tad busy, so the kind offer of lend lease by the US was a much better use of the allies resources.

How that became the US “can’t produce whats wanted” is beyond me; did the US aerospace industry disappear when I wasn’t looking?

Errrr… you had a competition to see if if anyone could offer what was wanted, and one offered something that wasn’t wanted… If they could produce what was actually wanted why didn’t Boeing do that???.. Modesty??:)

Cheers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otaku View Post
Anyways, I don’t know about anti-grav but I heard a rumour that the B-2 ionises the air passing over it’s full span leading edge, offering considerable aerodynamic advantages.

While I can’t say that I know for a fact that this is a myth, it seems pretty far-fetched for a non-research-oriented stealth aircraft to me.

Hmm look at the weight of the aircraft and the thrust of the engines… it doesn’t match with any other bomber, it looks very underpowered. 😉

cheers

I’m sure there is a commercially confident £/$ figure somewhere in EADS that is the Unit cost (Flyaway), whatever that number is we can’t be very accurate the price if often quoted as between £41m and £61m, this numbers vary so much because they contain differing levels of equipment (i.e. laser Warning Receivers for the UK/Spanish versions), differing levels of TAX/VAT/GST.

Tranche 3 is up in the air (pun intended), the UK has spent a fortune moving Iraqi rubble from one pile into smaller pieces all over.. this is a priority as the pesky insurgents keep hiding in the rubble, and apparently are breeding in the rubble (who would have thought that less than 2000 insurgents would turn into 25,000+ , just shows what you can do with the right foreign policies:D ).

Now the budget in the UK is under severe strain, and shiny new Typhoons are not much use for rubble rabble, sooooo the UK MoD is looking at everything to save money including renegotiation Typhoon contracts unfortunately to stop those pesky European chappy’s from queering the pitch on Eurofighter the contracts are tighter that a nuns nasty, which means the penalties for pulling out are severe, it might be nearly as cheap to get the full tranche 3 compliment.

But a large order for 126 might just be enough to stop the bickering and a renegotiation may be possible its hard because Spain wants the full amount of tranche 3 as does Italy.

So expect to see the RAF and Typhoons dropping bombs on rubble/rabble real soon so as to justify some of the expense.

Also keep your ears open for other export markets as they are getting interesting, IMHO news sources for the exports have dried up, so something going on..:eek:

Cheers