F-ZeroOne Posted March 11, 2008 Posted March 11, 2008 I read that article yesterday and there was a quote from a senator near the end that i wanted to quote here.... it was disgusting!!! funny... the article has been edited today and the quote removed... strange that - basically it said that europeans were untrustworthy and the US should not put any of its defense issues in their hands... You should know by now, after all, we make all the best movie villains...
kalvasflam Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 The sad thing is, if Boeing put up the 777, they would've likely won Or heck, if they played fair in the first round of negotiation, they wouldn't be in this fix. As expected, the CEO of Boeing is literally screwing things over for everyone right now. This is the problem for McNerdy, since he took over, Boeing is not doing so well any more. 787 going down the tubes with delays, KC-X lost, wonder when he'll resign
kalvasflam Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Meh. They could delay it another couple *years* and it'd still be out before the A350. The airlines really don't have much choice--wait for the 787, or wait longer for the A350. (and it'll still be a lesser delay than the A380---though the A380 is now in service, it's still being delayed----there's still only 2 delivered, with many still being reworked with a lot of labor to go) http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/boei...4B0C81CD98CE%7D You know, the truth of the matter is, every delay kills Boeing a little more. Remember, there are always options to cancel orders, remember the A380F. A delay of a year means that opens slots are pushed out a year. A delay would also mean that as a company, Boeing will be paying penalties out the nose to customers. A delay means more opportunity for Airbus to compete on equal terms. This of course assumes the A350 doesn't face yet another screw up as well. On top of all that, a delay means longer time horizon for the 787-10, which may or may not happen. Boeing is going down the tubes because of this. 45 units delivered instead of the original 112 planned, that's a ton of penalty, not to mention unhappy customers that might flock to Airbus. Hell, considering how they'll be screwing over ANA, Boeing may as well be handing EADS the key to the Japan market.
David Hingtgen Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 ANA has a bad taste in their mouth for Airbus though--tried them once, and got rid of them all quickly, apparently only because of customer service/support (or lack thereof).
kalvasflam Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 ANA has a bad taste in their mouth for Airbus though--tried them once, and got rid of them all quickly, apparently only because of customer service/support (or lack thereof). So what you're saying is that ANA will be secretly supporting Mitsubishi as they quietly try to build up their own portfolio of large commercial aircraft?
David Hingtgen Posted March 19, 2008 Posted March 19, 2008 If I don't buy an HDTV, and someone loans me 499K, I can snag a very nice ex-USAF 737: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-T-43-7...tem170201044910
Nied Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 If I don't buy an HDTV, and someone loans me 499K, I can snag a very nice ex-USAF 737: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-T-43-7...tem170201044910 Meh. It's a -200, get the HDTV instead.
kalvasflam Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Ouch, more pain for Boeing, the key word here is design changes... meaning it has very little to do with suppliers, unless failure in supply chain is forcing a redesign which could mean even more of a problem. At this rate, Boeing can expect to ship their first plane on the same day Airbus announces their first delay from the A350XWB. Talk about being in trouble. Apparently, Boeing didn't learn a damn thing from the Airbus A380 mistakes. We can expect this to affect the Boeing bottom line and most likely a loss of market share when the A350XWB comes on line http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080320/boeing_787.html?.v=1
F-ZeroOne Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Nice shot of a RAF Typhoon being awesome. 'bout time we had one. http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary/de...mp;MediaID=8050
David Hingtgen Posted March 22, 2008 Posted March 22, 2008 Looks like the USN may need to buy a lot more than 69 Super Hornets to make up for the JSF delays: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...n%20Predictions 10,000 hrs on a fighter? Even Canada doesn't think a Hornet can last THAT long. (and they don't smack theirs down onto carriers every day)
Vifam7 Posted March 22, 2008 Posted March 22, 2008 Looks like the USN may need to buy a lot more than 69 Super Hornets to make up for the JSF delays: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...n%20Predictions 10,000 hrs on a fighter? Even Canada doesn't think a Hornet can last THAT long. (and they don't smack theirs down onto carriers every day) Maybe the Navy should take those re-winged Intruders out of storage.
David Hingtgen Posted March 22, 2008 Posted March 22, 2008 That was one of the bigger wastes of Naval plane money. Spend millions to re-wing the planes, then send them straight to the desert.
Smiley424 Posted March 23, 2008 Posted March 23, 2008 Nice shot of a RAF Typhoon being awesome. 'bout time we had one. http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary/de...mp;MediaID=8050 Nice, love those pics of sonic boom plumes.
Warmaker Posted March 23, 2008 Posted March 23, 2008 (edited) I always thought that the delays in the JSF program were mostly with the VTOL variant, and the USN/USAF versions were coming along just fine. Hmm... When the JSFs come over to the Fleet, I'll be transitioning over from Hornets to them. I can then proudly say I've been a 3 platform maintainer Oh, and the nice jabbing between the companies at the end of the Hornet shortage article's good fun, too! Edited March 23, 2008 by Warmaker
David Hingtgen Posted March 23, 2008 Posted March 23, 2008 First production MiG-29K for the Indian Navy: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...ndian-navy.html Now if they can just get a carrier for them...
David Hingtgen Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 News: MiG-27 re-engined with the Flanker's engine: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...2&ct=result Hmmn. Less weight, more thrust, lower fuel consumption. (probably more reliable and easier to work on, too) Australia still wants the F-22: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23427990-29277,00.html and another F-35 carrier: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23426041-421,00.html
Fatalist Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Saw This on Gizmodo this morning. Sorry if it might be a repost.
F-ZeroOne Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 (edited) Interesting little tid-bit about about the A380: it seats gazillions of passengers but only has 15 toilets. According to a journalist, there were always queues of three or four people the whole way to Singapore... Northrop-Grumman are submitting a design for a stealthy UCAV: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164650,00.html They will no doubt build the greatest UCAV the World has ever seen, one that looks like a Ghost fighter or something, and then lose the contract to someone else. This is Northrop, the company the defence establishment loves to ignore. The Typhoon Tranche 1 recently completed its required weapons clearances i.e. it can now drop bombs. Heres some more Typhoon sucking the rain from the Welsh skies: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachmen...mp;d=1206231304 With an American at the controls, no less. He said "The Typhoon is the number one fighter aircraft of the modern world. F-22s suck. Nyah-ya-ya!". Possibly. Edit: Northrop spelling. Sorry, Mr. Northrop. Hope you didn't spin too many times. Edited March 26, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
David Hingtgen Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 ::gasp:: You go to the Key Publishing forum? That's like, the Robotech.com of military sites... PS--I'm unaware of any category in which the EF-2000 beats the F-22.
F-ZeroOne Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 ::gasp:: You go to the Key Publishing forum? That's like, the Robotech.com of military sites... PS--I'm unaware of any category in which the EF-2000 beats the F-22. What can I say? Theres occasionally a diamond in the rough... And I bet I can name one category - protraction of development. Sorry, I actually quite like the F-22 (not as much as the YF-23, though) but I couldn't resist!
dizman Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Could the typhoon even take on the su-37 and win in a dogfight? Somehow I doubt the typhie could be better than the raptor, but then again I'm just your average stupid American.
Vifam7 Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 ::gasp:: You go to the Key Publishing forum? That's like, the Robotech.com of military sites... PS--I'm unaware of any category in which the EF-2000 beats the F-22. Er, um... how about hyperboles, projections, and promises?
F-ZeroOne Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 (edited) I was joking. We Brits never get to have anything nice. *sniff* Edit - er - the Typhoon is actually in service, with several countries, at least. I'm not sure how up to date the Wikipedia entry is, but the Su-37 seems still to be largely a development article...? Edited March 25, 2008 by F-ZeroOne
Nied Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Could the typhoon even take on the su-37 and win in a dogfight? Somehow I doubt the typhie could be better than the raptor, but then again I'm just your average stupid American. Of course it could. It's got a superior sensor suite, superior speed (low level supercruise even) and is roughly comparable in terms of maneuverability until you get into really low speeds (where the Su-37's TVC comes into play). The Tiffy is no Raptor but I want whatever the people saying it'd be easy game for an F-15 or Flanker are smoking, because it's gotta be good stuff.
Vifam7 Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 I was joking. We Brits never get to have anything nice. *sniff* Edit - er - the Typhoon is actually in service, with several countries, at least. I'm not sure how up to date the Wikipedia entry is, but the Su-37 seems still to be largely a development article...? If only...you guys never cancelled the TSR.2... ;_; Now that would've been something nice. But hey, the EE Lightning wasn't too bad right? The Typhoon isn't that bad. And it's probably unfair to compare it against the F-22 or F-35. I would assume it's more than a match against the latest Sukhois.
Nied Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 News: MiG-27 re-engined with the Flanker's engine: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...2&ct=result Hmmn. Less weight, more thrust, lower fuel consumption. (probably more reliable and easier to work on, too) Add in some good Israeli avionics and you could get a decent cheap fighter fleet. Might even make the Mig-23 something more than useless.
Nied Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 But hey, the EE Lightning wasn't too bad right? In any category except looks. I swear that had to be one of the ugliest aircraft ever made. It's like every engineer in the British isles decided to start beating their designs soundly with the ugly stick after the Hawker Hunter was made.
bsu legato Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Today is a sad anniversary in Canadian aviation history. http://ca.video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=210755&fr= Thanks for nothing, Diefenbaker. Next time I pass through Saskatoon, I'll be sure to stop your grave to piss on it.
Vifam7 Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) In any category except looks. I swear that had to be one of the ugliest aircraft ever made. It's like every engineer in the British isles decided to start beating their designs soundly with the ugly stick after the Hawker Hunter was made. I like the looks of the Lightning. Very macho looking. Love the odd shaped wings. Lightning with Victor tanker (another gorgeous Brit aircraft) Edited March 26, 2008 by Vifam7
David Hingtgen Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Umm, actually the Su-37 couldn't beat anything at all now. It's in a million pieces scattered around Zhukovsky. There was only ever the one. However, the Su-30MKI, is better in every possible way and has every feature the -37 did, and more, and IS in mass production and in service. (The Su-30MKK, MK2, MKV, MKA and MK-anything-else are all inferior to the MKI, in varying degrees of inferiority) I'd put the Su-30MKI as overall superior to anything but the F-22, and possibly superior to the F-22 in agility, and probably superior in speed.
Graham Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 ::gasp:: You go to the Key Publishing forum? That's like, the Robotech.com of military sites... PS--I'm unaware of any category in which the EF-2000 beats the F-22. Good looks! And everybody know looking good is half the battle! Graham
Nied Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Umm, actually the Su-37 couldn't beat anything at all now. It's in a million pieces scattered around Zhukovsky. There was only ever the one. Well notional Su-37. However, the Su-30MKI, is better in every possible way and has every feature the -37 did, and more, and IS in mass production and in service. (The Su-30MKK, MK2, MKV, MKA and MK-anything-else are all inferior to the MKI, in varying degrees of inferiority) The MKI doesn't have the wet tail fins or IIRC any of the advanced composites and metals in the structure. That combined with the extra seat taking up space that could go to fuel should give it less range. On the otehr hand some of the russian avionics were replaced by Israeli, French and Indian equipment. I'd put the Su-30MKI as overall superior to anything but the F-22, and possibly superior to the F-22 in agility, and probably superior in speed. It can't supercruise like the Typhoon, nor does it have the type of powerful computer suites backing and fusing data the data like the Typhoon and the Raptor. Those two alone should give either a powerful edge over an MKI.
Noyhauser Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Today is a sad anniversary in Canadian aviation history. http://ca.video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=210755&fr= Thanks for nothing, Diefenbaker. Next time I pass through Saskatoon, I'll be sure to stop your grave to piss on it. Meh. Thanks for saving us from the greatest military procurement disaster of all time. I once did a rough calculation and if the cost overruns ran their course, the project was set to eat up over three percent of Canada's entire GDP in the years following 1960. We don't spend even three percent today on the entire defence budget. We weren't just responsible for the Fighter; we actually took over the Sparrow II program, and a radar program. The Americans had a better fighter on the boards at the time, the XF-108, which would have been far cheaper to procure. And its also important to take a good look at the changing situation. All major high speed interceptor projects were dead by 1960, there was just no need for them anymore, because of the aggressive reconnaissance operations put forward by Eisenhower (RB-47 raids, U-2 flights and finally Corona) discovered the USSR had very few manned bombers able to reach North America. Sputnik, and the first Soviet ICBMs became the greater threat. Spending hundreds of millions on a handful of Interceptors for an almost non-existent threat was indefensible. I think Deif and George Pearkes would have faced even greater controversy if he had not cancelled the programme at the time that they did.
Nied Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 I like the looks of the Lightning. Very macho looking. Love the odd shaped wings. Lightning with Victor tanker (another gorgeous Brit aircraft) <snip pic of ugly duckling> Ugh. The Victor is precisely what I had in mind when I was talking about other ugly British aircraft. It's covered in odd bulges, droopy bits, parts sticking out at odd angles and that refueling probe poking out of the top of the nose like it's some kind of Narwhal. The Lightning is little better: the big fat fuselage with the pregnant looking belly tank, engines stacked on top of each other for god knows what reason, the weird little wings, mal-proportioned canopy, and missiles mounted on it's fat cheeks. I'm always shocked how quickly the UK went from having the engineers at Supermarine tweaking the Spitfire until it looked pretty, and making planes like the Hunter and the Vulcan to, well, those two.
dizman Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Yeah we all realize the su-37 was obliterated and a fail but in my eyes the 37 always stood out as the pinnacle of russian engineering, taking an old design and beefing it up to superhuman specs where it could stand out in the 21st century. I always seem to compare other planes to it, I guess I'm just an old fanboy .
Recommended Posts