Flyboyf18 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I noticed the 'Boeing' pilot is wearing Canadian pilot's wings. Great if he earned them here but he not currently flying for the Canadian Forces and so he should remove them???????? I am wrong in saying this?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) I don't see anything wrong with a Company Test Pilot having the Wings of where he or she earned them embroidered onto their flightsuits ... It is most likely a matter of pride ... Same as some one boasting where they earned their degree even though they no longer attend that school ... Gregg Edited February 9, 2011 by GreyGhost Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 SAO PAULO, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has told visitors she believes Boeing's F-18 is the best jet among three finalists in a multi-billion dollar Air Force fighter tender, but she is still pressing for better terms on technology transfers that are critical to any deal. Rousseff raised the issue of the jet tender during a meeting in Brasilia on Monday with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, sources with knowledge of the conversation told Reuters. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks. More details here. Both India and Brazil have ambition to build up more of their Aerospace industry and have made strong head start on that. And for industrial reasons the MMRCA competition will not simply be to select a fighter on the basis of aircraft performance and cost. The Indian government all but said so when it issued the long-delayed request for proposals more than three years ago. The RFP set out that the program would fulfill the air force’s operational requirements and give the defense industry an opportunity to grow to a globally competitive scale. Before anyone gets too twitterpated over how strong the state of Indian Aerospace is, they are struggling just like everyone else who is trying to build up a new industry. LCA, for example. Took them 20+ years to replace the Mig-21 with a... slightly inferior to a late model Mig-21 indigenous product. So, you are correct, of course they want to improve. Heck, they can't even build a modern engine--yet. The MMRCA competition is one of the most impressive that I've seen in recent years. The Indian government knows what they want and knows how to play the cards to get them. The Brazilian government has similar ambition, but does not run the show nearly as well. Will the Indian get everything they want? Probably not, but will be damn close to it. The MMRCA can hardly be called a model competition considering how long overdue it is (started in 2001!), and they aren't even developing a jet, just buying one off the shelf. Some light reading might give you a different perspective. Political support and military requirements stability are crucial in this business for success. MMRCA has had neither in the last decade. Also, I'm not sure where you got the impression India is going to get even close to what they want--even the French, who are very liberal with tech transfer, won't give away the store on this one. As for Brazil, you were watching when the previous president wanted a sweatheart deal with the French for Rafales in spite of the military objections? Hardly a model for fair and objective results--and further proof military utility is lucky to be a back seat concern to industrial growth. The French really put him over a barrel, which is why the new president backed off immediately from that deal. I wouldn't be surprised if she is using Boeing as leverage to make the other guys crack. In the end, whatever Jet they choose is as likely the best deal for the pols as it is the best fit for their military needs. Fact is, all of these decisions are driven as much by if not more than political, not military utility considerations. A smaller or less powerful country will historically choose a product that aligns with the "big brother" they want to please. Norway really ticked off their Scandanavian military partner by choosing the JSF over the Gripen. That was a risky deal--the two countries share a lot economically, and there was tremendous pressure on Norway to go Gripen "just because". Not that the Gripen is a bad plane, but Norway made a military and political decision, just as the Dutch and Canadians are--lots of aerospace industry survival/growth will come from JSF that they couldn't sustain on their own. JSF is not the only example--every foreign sales ends up transferring some technology and work to the receiving country. Whether the tech transfer is meaningful enough for a nation to build up their aerospace industry and compete globally, well, that hasn't happened with the exception of China. But, all this is pure speculation since both the Silent Eagle and Silent Hornet don't exist yet, and Boeing has yet to get any firm offers or try to enter either into a competition. And Silent Hornet would be massively hampered in any competition as the buyer would bear the brunt of the NRE--very few nations seem willing to lay out that kind of dough. They both would make fantastic WIF builds, though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Mark, let me elaborate on your last few paragraphs, by focusing on traditional programs vs the JSF. The big difference about the JSF over all other programs is how its domestic offsets were structured. Over the past few decades most exportable fighters follow a pretty routine path. After designing and producing the fighter, the go and search for customers offering a bunch of different inducements like buying an equal amount of goods from that country... aerospace related or otherwise. Increasingly this sort of competition has become cutthroat. For example SAAB has (reportedly) been offering over one hundred percent offsets, licensed production and transfers of Intellectual property. Given this highly competitive environment, LM and the Department of Defense attempted a new approach. Right from the outset the JSF made international cooperation a major feature of the program. This was always going to be the case because of the British partnership on the JAST program, which was the precursor to the JSF. Foreign involvement reminiscent of how Boeing runs its commercial airlines business. Foreign subcontractors are allowed to bid for major contracts. The main qualifier was that only partner countries (Paid the initial development funds, and made a commitment to purchase the jet) would be allowed to compete. While this approach did not give the same guarantees for the fighters, it was potentially far more lucrative than an domestic offset arrangement. Now only was the potential order size (Which a subcontractor would help produce parts for) was massive, it also helped build the partner countries industries. These countries would presumably bid with their national champions (Alenia in Italy, Heroux Devtek, PWC, Avcorp in Canada) for contracts that they were best suited on. This was a highly attractive from an industrial point of view. As an established program, the Silent Eagle/Hornet will not have the same opportunities and can only offer a traditional offset arrangement. Truth be told, all of the MMRCA competitors use a traditional offset program. Thus its a dogfight of who will build licensed production facilities, domestic technology transfers and the like. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
I.Martin Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Another step forward to Macross jets design!! God,I really miss the Tomcat.... I.Martin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 -Neu- A friendly reminder: implying anything about the JSF program was done right, including the partner arrangement as you very well laid out, will incur a dog pile of biblical proportions. Especially if you dare bring the most sacred and righteous Super Hornet into the discussion... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) -Neu-A friendly reminder: implying anything about the JSF program was done right, including the partner arrangement as you very well laid out, will incur a dog pile of biblical proportions. Especially if you dare bring the most sacred and righteous Super Hornet into the discussion... What always gets me is how not even five years ago the Shornet was the target of much derision due to the fact that it replaced the even more sacred and righteous Tomcat. Does nobody remember the fact that people were harping on its apparently poor maneuverability and range compared to the super amazing F-14? Now its the unimpeachable paragon of quality and the F-35 is a disaster. Grain of salt. Edited February 9, 2011 by -Neu- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 On a slightly different track, both of the silent designs tell me Boeing is getting out of the manned aircraft business altogether. There is a lot of noise about the JSF being the last manned fighter for decades, which means Boeing won't be able to afford a tactical aircraft design team waiting for the manned follow on. Since neither of these designs have US military interest, they will be lucky to not be the next F-20. Unless Boeing ponies up corporate funds to cover the NRE on either design, the odds they'll find another UAE to bankroll the development and flight test are IMO slim. Nope, they are betting on UAVs, especially net centric ones! :lol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kei Lau Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I noticed the 'Boeing' pilot is wearing Canadian pilot's wings. Great if he earned them here but he not currently flying for the Canadian Forces and so he should remove them???????? I am wrong in saying this?? Ricardo Traven is the chief test pilot on the Super Hornet program for The Boeing Company. A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School and a former U.S. Navy Test Pilot School instructor, Ricardo has more than 18 years of experience as a fighter pilot and test pilot. He retired from the Canadian Forces as a Major and joined Boeing in 1997. He earned it and deserves it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 What always gets me is how not even five years ago the Shornet was the target of much derision due to the fact that it replaced the even more sacred and righteous Tomcat. Does nobody remember the fact that people were harping on its apparently poor maneuverability and range compared to the super amazing F-14? Now its the unimpeachable paragon of quality and the F-35 is a disaster.Grain of salt. Good point, I remember article's back when it was first being introduced that quoted Navy pilots as saying the SH was a "grape" in air to air combat, had poor acceleration and while it's range was an improvement over the very short-legged legacy Hornets, it still left much to be desired. My uneducated thoughts on the SH is that is at best an average airframe with an above-average avionics package. The Navy was in no position to get an advanced fighter to replace the Tomcat and "settled" for the F-18E/F. You never really hear anyone talking up the blistering performance of the SH, they usually focus on it's AESA radar, superior cockpit layout, targeting capability, etc. On a semi-related note - what does the future hold for the single-seater? Doesn't sound like anyone is looking at this for future international purchases. Does this plane figure in the USN's long-term plans or will they be phased out by additional purchases of F models or do will they have a place on flight decks for the next decade or two? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 On a slightly different track, both of the silent designs tell me Boeing is getting out of the manned aircraft business altogether. There is a lot of noise about the JSF being the last manned fighter for decades, which means Boeing won't be able to afford a tactical aircraft design team waiting for the manned follow on. Since neither of these designs have US military interest, they will be lucky to not be the next F-20. Unless Boeing ponies up corporate funds to cover the NRE on either design, the odds they'll find another UAE to bankroll the development and flight test are IMO slim.Nope, they are betting on UAVs, especially net centric ones! :lol: Well last year Boeing unveiled their market outlook for the next two decades and the F/A-XX program was a central part. Basically it was a manned superiority fighter replacement coming online in about the 2025-ish timeframe. How they plan to keep St Louis going until then is anybody's guess. Maybe it will hinge on the Next Generation Bomber program and some F/A-18 sales. I think alot of this will hinge on how the F-35 and X-47 (or whatever is chosen) integrate together in the field. If it works as some have then a sixth gen fighter will likely emerge. If such integration proves infeasible in the field, well then all bets are off. Part of me feels that the Silent programs are basically Boeing fishing expeditions to try to peel away potential customers from the F-35 or European challengers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 -Neu-A friendly reminder: implying anything about the JSF program was done right, including the partner arrangement as you very well laid out, will incur a dog pile of biblical proportions. Especially if you dare bring the most sacred and righteous Super Hornet into the discussion... Actually, I believe F-35 is being brought into a discussion about Super Hornet ... The F-35 thread is down below, Dood ... As for the maneuverability, it's good enough for an EA-18G to get some Raptor Meat ... :lol: Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 As for the maneuverability, it's good enough for an EA-18G to get some Raptor Meat ... :lol: We also have guncam videos of A-10's and F-111's getting kills on F-15's as well. What is your point? I assume you are just kidding and don't really mean to suggest that any version of SH is in the same class as an F-22? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 <...> What is your point? I assume you are just kidding and don't really mean to suggest that any version of SH is in the same class as an F-22? More or less, yes, I was kidding ... But I've read that the maneuverability of the Super Hornet is much better than whats being said in this thread ... Far better than a Tomcat's and has been said to be the most maneuverable aircraft without TV Nozzles ... I've wondered how good it would be if it did get TVNs ... A pilot can pretty much point the nose anywhere they want in a gun fight while in a Rhino ... Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.