Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bingolong on February 29, 2008, 04:00:53 PM
-
:eek:
boeing was really counting on this one
http://www.keprtv.com/news/national/16122807.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120432006746103635.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
-
See Rule #7
-
it was Boeings to lose. Forty Billion dollars
-
Bad news for Boeing but good news for the state of Alabama
http://www.governorpress.alabama.gov/pr/pr-2008-01-14-01-airbus2.asp
-
We've been known to be loose, especially at the management level. :confused:
It's a terrible blow to Boeing. Not sure what else to say. It was very somber when the news was announced.
-
We thank you for your business :lol
-
Bribing never works.
-
Rip,
I think the USAF bought the better tanker.
I hate to say that because that tanker should be a Boeing tanker.
Just goes to show you how much we have slid since Homer Simpson (aka Phil Conduit) brought MD into the fold. We just haven't been the same since :cry
We should have offered USAF a 777 tanker. I felt that way years ago. But we were so wrapped up in that 767 that we tried to force their hand.
-
That's a suprise, maybe Boeing just wasn't offering enough kickbacks for the business.
...-Gixer
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Sad :(
That some the upper boeing officials had to get loose Im sure Boeing will get the next contract. Seams like a pretty stiff penalty though. and more ******* of the unions.
"Tom Wroblewski, president of Machinists Union District 751, was outraged at the decision, which he called ill-considered.
"Airbus does not even currently build a tanker. It is a paper airplane only, and they do not even have a factory built in the U.S. at this time," Wroblewski said. "Our members could have started building the tanker today, and we have a superior product that has already been delivered to customers."
Because of the Air Force decision, "America has to rely on a foreign country to defend our nation. This is wrong. And we will not stand silent on this issue," he said."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004252338_apwaairforcetankerwash3rdldwritethru.html
The "replacement" plane is having its share as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333972,00.html
There is always the helo bussiness minor consulation
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2008/02/25/daily79.html
Big news day for boeing. monday will be dark.
-
Wow, Aqua.
That's the most tarded thing you've said in a while.
-
Originally posted by Bingolong
Because of the Air Force decision, "America has to rely on a foreign country to defend our nation. This is wrong. And we will not stand silent on this issue," he said."
Umm, a country we are Allied with.
So its OK we provide our allies with aircraft they use, but not vice versa? Let's not get all blinded by patriotism here.
I'd love to see Boeing contest the decision, which is their right to do.
-
Hurrah for global competition and may the best entry win, but still hard to understand Boeing not having the best tanker.
Perhaps it is not inconceivable that some day another nation may be designing what the U.S. deploys as bombers, fighters, satellites, missiles, subs, carriers, nukes, and tanks?
If by then we could still afford them.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
See Rules #4, #5
Typical elitist dumbthink. You don't need a peice of paper to know how to do a job. You need experience and intelligence and a general overall ability to tackle problems and solve them.
As important as I feel an accredited education is it is still only the beginining, you still need the hands on experience.
Mark
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
See Rule #7
wow
-
The contract was awarded Northrop Grumman, who will also build the aircraft. Why are you people whining?
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
The contract was awarded Northrop Grumman, who will also build the aircraft. Why are you people whining?
Northrop will be 'assembling' the aircraft. Building implies actually creating something from raw materials. The 6000 jobs created in whatever state gets the assembly plant will not do anything to keep critical national infrastructure (R&D, engineers, etc) going in the US.
And that's why the politicians are going nuts. Yea some are worried about their constituents, but the rest are wondering why we will be sending all that money overseas when in return, we get "offset" work in the US that require little more talent than needed to assemble a toyota camry.
And of course, if things go to hell, we'll find that we don't have any engineers left that know how to build tankers, booms, or any of the other specialized critical tidbits of knowledge that go into this sort of thing.
Oh yea, outsourcing the tanker also will KILL the "smart tanker" concept, because there is no way in hell we'll export the comm gear and intel technology we wanted to have as an option. It's the same problem we're having with the Brits balking at not getting the source code and stealth validation technology with the JSF, except in reverse - we'll have technology we want integrated into that tanker, and we will find it tough to do it because the people doing the work won't be allowed to have the tech.
Call to tech support:
USAF: Our comm gear doesn't work.
EADS: What kind of comm gear is it?
USAF: I can't tell you. But it doesn't work.
EADS: What antenna did you plug it into?
USAF: The pointy one near the front up on top.
EADS: That's only good for UHF.
USAF: We know. It doesn't work though.
EADS: Have you switched the comm gear on? I mean, is the on/off switch in the on position, and is it plugged into the electrical system?
USAF: Hang on, lemme go check.
USAF: Yes it's plugged in and it's on, but it still doesn't work.
EADS: If you'll just fax us the specs...*click* hello? hello?
I'm not a "decider" but it's not hard to come up with a dozen or more really good reasons why we shouldn't rely on another country for a military capability that is so absolutely critical as air refuelling. Everything we do in modern joint warfare relies on tanker support. It is the proverbial long pole in the tent... Our entire logistics flow in pretty much every potential theater relies 100% on tankers, because it's too expensive to pre-position both equipment AND people. And so we're outsourcing it? No wonder Congress is throwing a fit.
This is little different than if stratcom announced they were outsourcing the next generation of nuclear warheads to Germany, or the Navy outsourcing their next nuke missile sub to Japan... There is a saying the tanker guys like repeating... NKAWTG (Nobody kicks a** without tanker gas). That isn't just a flippant remark, it's the absolute truth. You just don't outsource critical resources like that.
Well, I guess we do now.
-
Hmm i see your point eagle sorta..
But it should go both ways dont you think?
-
Boeing works with nearly 500 companies in 21 European countries. About half of Boeing's planes usually bear the "Made in Europe" stamp.
Boeing has about 1,000 suppliers outside the United States:
Europe 495
Americas 236
Asia/Pacific 147
Middle East 39
Africa 3
Likewise Airbus has suppliers in America and the rest of the world. Buying from Boeing does not get you an American plane. Just like with Airbus you get an international plane, only with final assembly done in Everett instead of Mobile.
So, what’s your point again?
-
It *should* go both ways, except that *most* countries would either go bankrupt or fall far far behind in capability if they wanted to develop everything in-house.
USSR tried to keep up and went bankrupt. Look at how many countries went after next generation fighters, and look how those match up against the F-22. Heck, how many countries are buying the eurofighter, how many years was it in development, and how many are actually operational? Compare that against the F-22.
That's not intended to be bragging, it's just pointing out that there is a time and a place for developing specific capabilities in-house. For critical capabilities, it is very perilous to allow the R&D to be done elsewhere. In this case, the US is actually giving up a capability that nobody else can match, but which is absolutely essential to our basic warfighting gameplan. That's a bit different than outsourcing production of something that can't possibly be done in-house to begin with. As an example, it appears that it is simply not economically or technically feasable for the UK to design and build their next carrier. The barriers are insurmountable. But by going in on it with a partner, it becomes possible.
There is nothing like that for the US. We have zero critical capabilities that we cannot produce ourselves. Giving up one is therefore much more than a question of budgetary efficiency. Does the EADS proposal give us a capability that we cannot get by ourselves? If so, we not only have a procurement problem, we have a national technical infrastructure disaster on our hands.
-
Originally posted by Lumpy
Boeing works with nearly 500 companies in 21 European countries. About half of Boeing's planes usually bear the "Made in Europe" stamp.
Boeing has about 1,000 suppliers outside the United States:
Europe 495
Americas 236
Asia/Pacific 147
Middle East 39
Africa 3
Likewise Airbus has suppliers in America and the rest of the world. Buying from Boeing does not get you an American plane. Just like with Airbus you get an international plane, only with final assembly done in Everett instead of Mobile.
So, what’s your point again?
You should check your sources again, this time ensuring that military spec requirements are in mind. Congress passed a law a long time ago that stated military procurement will not rely on components that can be only built off-shore or using materials (mostly expensive or rare metals) that cannot be procured in the US.
This requirement drives up the cost of a lot of things, but it ensures that we do not lose critical capabilities in the event that we lose our sea/air lines of commerce/communication.
And the design for those boeing planes is still done right here. The 787 is a bit of an exception since some design work was in fact handed off to reliable industry partners, but the USAF isn't considering buying any 787s.
-
What part of an Airbus cannot be built in the US later on if need be?
And I wasn't talking about the 787. I was talking about Boeing planes in general with the numbers representing the B717 (MD-95).
As for your Eurofighter vs. Raptor argument. As of December 2007 four countries operated a total of 137 Eurofighters, with 707 on order as of January 2008.
As of October 2007 only 91 Raptors were active with a planned total of 187.
What you were trying to illustrate with this example is not clear though.
-
I wonder how long before Northrop starts assembling A380's?
-
I see your point, Eagl. But there's a lot of exceptions to the rule.
The "analogy" you have created is interesting but I also want to point out that we sell F-16s to lots of governments. Some, such as Israel, put their own avionics and weaponry in there.
What's stopping us from putting our own avionics and such in there? I mean, if the new KC is built as described, then the USAF would have the ability to modify and load it up with whatever they contract for, yes?
As has been said all over the media, this was Boeing's to have or squander. Personally, I think the bird they produced is an excellent product. I haven't seen the reporting on why the Air Force chose who they did. That would be an interesting read.
-
I would think that any country that can produce planes can make tankers... They are not that complex.
If everything goes to hell and Northrop Grumman in the US refuses to produce spare parts or services for your tanker fleet i would bet that Boeing would be right there. In a time of (real) war i would suspect that the US government would just take control of the factory just like any other nation would if they were at war.
This should not be a big deal, however if the US did decide to buy boeing JUST because its american and there are no other benefits then it would open up a bag of trouble in regards to international trade.
-
Aviation Week did some industry analysis on the issue of adding features after delivery... They pointed out several recent projects that failed for no reason other than the capabilities being added were not included in the original design, so the integration was either prohibitively expensive or physically impossible. There was a high visibility intel gathering platform that was cancelled because the chosen airframe was too small.
And none of this gets around the fact that outsourcing R&D and core engineering for a military capability that is a critical national asset is generally a really bad thing to do. In fact, it can be relatively easily argued that if the capability can be maintained in house, it should NEVER be outsourced because the risk level is unacceptable.
I don't mean "threat"... I mean "risk". As in the consequences for being wrong are absolutely catastrophic, even if the chances are 1 in a million.
Losing the ability to make more tankers due to not having the blueprints or even the engineers to re-do the work, or immediately procure spare parts, would be catastrophic because almost everything we do in modern joint warfare relies on air refuelling. It is a force multipler, and our entire force structure is based on (among other things) the assumption that we will have tanker support.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I would think that any country that can produce planes can make tankers... They are not that complex.
If everything goes to hell and Northrop Grumman in the US refuses to produce spare parts or services for your tanker fleet i would bet that Boeing would be right there. In a time of (real) war i would suspect that the US government would just take control of the factory just like any other nation would if they were at war.
This should not be a big deal, however if the US did decide to buy boeing JUST because its american and there are no other benefits then it would open up a bag of trouble in regards to international trade.
First, it IS that complex. It really is not easy. I've been there, done that, and I'm glad I didn't explode.
Second, nobody is keeping extra engineers sitting around waiting for something to happen, so Boeing can't "be right there" if we don't buy enough stuff from them to keep their staff on the payroll.
Third, no country in the world outsources critical capabilities that they can build themselves. Not one. If they need it and they can build it themselves, they do so, pretty much without exception.
Another example - Saddam thought everyone was his friend when he bought his air defense system. Then he made a few countries mad, and his gucci KARI IADS got picked apart with the help of the same people who sold it to him. Whoops. Can you honestly predict that the US will always be beloved around the world, and none of the EADS partners would give out information on a critical US military capability, if properly coerced? Heck, we couldn't even keep F-117 operations secret in the Kosovo campaign, and we weren't even fighting the people who leaked our ATO every night.
-
So the US defence industry actually decides future policies and not those who are elected and pay for it?
Isnt that abit... risky?
Solutions to these problems if they should arise are usually solved by the industy if money and contracts are offered. Its the nature of supply and demand.
-
Just to add a few nuggets of info on the Eurofighter vs. Raptor thing:
Eurofighter has been in development since 1979. Raptor has been in development since 1981.
Eurofighter first flight: 1994. Raptor first flight: 1997
Eurofighter went operational in 2003. Raptor was operational in 2005.
Eurofighter development cost: $41 billion (14% over budget and 54 months late). Raptor development cost: $62 billion (127% over budget and 117 months late)
As for comparing the capabilities of both aircraft the only man known to have flown both is General Jumper, former US Air Force chief of staff. According to him the two planes are "neck-and-neck".
-
So break it down to further...actual units produced/sold and cost per plane after adding in on the development costs.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So the US defence industry actually decides future policies and not those who are elected and pay for it?
Isnt that abit... risky?
Solutions to these problems if they should arise are usually solved by the industy if money and contracts are offered. Its the nature of supply and demand.
What are you talking about, WRT policy? The defense industry absolutely does NOT set policy. I have no idea why you would think I am implying this.
The wants of the industry have nothing to do with it. US defense industry is a resource to be used and protected, no different than a forest or a river. Neglect it, and it won't be around when you need it. The policy makers have over the last 90 or so years developed a military force structure that relies on certain critical capabilities. Nukes are one. Communication is another. Air power is still another, and that includes not only bombs on target but all 4 services relying on air refuelling to be able to accomplish their core tasks.
But you can't make engineers out of thin air. You can't train them and toss a few books at them, wave your hands, and say "let there be a tanker" any more than we could tell NASA to build a saturn V. The core competencies required to build the saturn V are literally gone forever. We would have to start from scratch.
Building a tanker is not as complex as a saturn V, but the idea is the same - if you don't use it, you lose it. That's really bad when it comes to critical capabilities. It would be like waking up one morning and realizing that we have no factories in the US making rifle and tank ammunition... Yea we could eventually start making the stuff again, but it would take a lot of time.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
So break it down to further...actual units produced/sold and cost per plane after adding in on the development costs.
The production/operational numbers are posted on the previous page. Flyaway unit costs are:
Eurofighter: $122.5 million.
Raptor: $137.5 million.
Anything else I can do for you? Fetch a cup of coffee perhaps? ;)
-
Well ive seen on several occations that a shipyard for example has said that more subs needs to get ordered, or more has to be made a year to keep critical people on staff. That is just one example. Are they not then in reality deciding when and how many subs your government orderes?
I seem to also remember the same thing beeing said about a transport recently (c-17?).
There are many more.
-
It's the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned of back in the 50's.
-
Lumpy,
Your numbers on cost are as good as any other numbers pulled out of anyone's A**... A German AF pilot told me the flyaway cost for their eurofighters was over 200 million euros. His country is buying them, so I think he'd know.
The point of course being look at the evolution of the eurofighter, the bickering over the tranche requirements/definitions, and the actual capability that they have right now vs. their original timeline. Look at how many countries have tied this military capability to how many other countries, who are constantly backing out of agreements on who will pay what, how many they'll buy, what capabilities will be funded, etc.
Look at the UK's eurofighter procurement plans and how they've changed.
For that matter, look at how pissed off the UK is over the JSF plans, specifically the *critical capability* of managing the stealth signature and software source code that the US doesn't want to hand over.
Now tell me why we should be so happy to buy into that sort of thing, knowing that we rely so heavily on actually having these things available for use today?
-
Originally posted by rpm
It's the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned of back in the 50's.
bingo
and
Engineers that are able to make tankers would pop up out of "nowere" if the government decieded it would have to offer Boeing a contract in the future because the "Airbus" planes failed. I would be very suprised if they didnt and Boeing turned down such a contract.
if $$$ is on the table things tend to get sorted ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well ive seen on several occations that a shipyard for example has said that more subs needs to get ordered, or more has to be made a year to keep critical people on staff. That is just one example. Are they not then in reality deciding when and how many subs your government orderes?
I seem to also remember the same thing beeing said about a transport recently (c-17?).
There are many more.
Yup. I'll use the C-17 program to illustrate.
The Pentagon planners have released several airlift requirements studies that show we need another 100 or so C-17s. But the way these things work is that the Pentagon can not "require" more than the budget allows, per spending caps specified by both the executive branch and congress. So even though they counted their beans, studied the warplans, and came up with a high number of required planes, they were forced to ask for many fewer planes because there are other higher priority items that also need funding.
Congress of course sees this happening, and they make a few decisions. They fund more C-17s for 2 reasons - They don't want the C-17 production line to close down when it is obvious we haven't bought enough to cover our true requirements, and of course the congressmen who's districts benefit from C-17 production weigh in to ensure the production line doesn't shut down and put people out of work in his district.
What Boeing or any other company thinks about all this is irrelevant. It costs $XX milion to keep the line open whether it's actually making planes or not, and no pubicly traded company can be expected to throw money away. So the line will close if planes are not purchased, end of story. The F-15 line was kept open the same way - Congress or the pentagon would fund a couple new-build F-15Es every year, just enough to keep the line open. Then Korea and Singapore bought a bunch. But after that, the line will probably close because it is stated USAF policy to buy no more combat (bomb dropping) aircraft that are not stealthy.
It's all in the policy maker's hands, not industry. The pentagon will never get enough money to meet all it's requirements, so they cut based on priorities. The C-17 cuts have been a bit of a game of chicken... Everyone knows we will have an airlift shortfall, but nobody wants to pay the bill on their watch. So congress has been adding in a handful of C-17s (and C-130s) just to keep the line open in case we determine we need it. In the case of the C-130, it's a good thing we kept that line open because we've worn out a lot of those things in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of the C-17, the C-5 re-engining and longevity programs are about 30% over budget so I bet we'll be glad the C-17 line is open in a few years.
The F-22 is another similar situation. The USAF knows it needs a few hundred, but they also know they won't get enough money for even half of what we need. So we'll have a capability shortfall unless congress coughs up enough coin for enough extra to keep the production line going. If the F-22, F-15, and F-16 lines close, we will have no fighter production capability in the US until the JSF matures, but of course that program has already slipped quite a bit and costs per aircraft have nearly doubled already.
-
If I recall, the C-17 couldnt meet all its design goals either.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Lumpy,
Your numbers on cost are as good as any other numbers pulled out of anyone's A**... A German AF pilot told me the flyaway cost for their eurofighters was over 200 million euros. His country is buying them, so I think he'd know.
The point of course being look at the evolution of the eurofighter, the bickering over the tranche requirements/definitions, and the actual capability that they have right now vs. their original timeline. Look at how many countries have tied this military capability to how many other countries, who are constantly backing out of agreements on who will pay what, how many they'll buy, what capabilities will be funded, etc.
Look at the UK's eurofighter procurement plans and how they've changed.
For that matter, look at how pissed off the UK is over the JSF plans, specifically the *critical capability* of managing the stealth signature and software source code that the US doesn't want to hand over.
Now tell me why we should be so happy to buy into that sort of thing, knowing that we rely so heavily on actually having these things available for use today?
My numbers are not pulled out of anyone's ass, they are pulled from the internet, which may be just as bad. ;)
Flyaway cost is the current unit price you'd have to pay for one aircraft. The price takes into account the future sales potential of the aircraft and is thus not a realistic number to use for the cost of each aircraft at this time. An economist would call this an incremental cost. Currently the incremental cost of an F-22 is $138 million.
However what your German friend seems to be talking about is the total cost of each plane. I.e. total program cost divided by number of aircraft produced. In this regard by the time all 183 Raptors have been delivered the F-22 program would have cost $339 million per aircraft. This cost will decrease with each new aircraft sold in the future and counting on future sales is what keeps the flyaway price down.
Comparatively more Eurofigters have been made and ordered than the Raptor and the development cost for the Eurofighter is only two thirds of the Raptor's. So the Eurofighter is cheaper no matter how you look at the numbers.
As for changing procurement plans: The USAF originally ordered 750 Raptors, but over the years that number has been revised no less than five times to the current order of 183 aircraft.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
If I recall, the C-17 couldnt meet all its design goals either.
I seem to remember some sort of controversy over that. If I recall correctly, the problem is that the low-speed short field capabilities directly detract from overall range and cruise speed. And the original requirements specifications were either met but were too short, or they assumed air refuelling that has turned out to be more scarce than expected back when the C-17 requirements were written.
In any case, I do recall it came up short in a couple of areas and it is not a complete C-5 replacement. But the F-22 and JSF can not replace certain F-15E capabilities, just like the F-15E did not completely replace the F-111.
-
I do see your point eagle about the production lines. It goes both ways though doesnt it?
The industry has a huge hold on the government and can force them into buying planes or other things that it may not need or can afford at the moment.
I still cant see any problem with the tanker deal as there is no open production lines. You say that engineers and know-how will go away but i cant agree at all there. They find jobs with the competion or do other work but they dont go dumb over night.
Im pretty sure that NASA can find people to design a landing craft to take them to the moon even if it hasnt been done in many years.... if they decide to go there and a project is funded.
-
bahahaha!
Didn't AgustaWestland win the contract for the president's helicopter too? Oh noes!!
-
Originally posted by eagl
Lumpy,
Your numbers on cost are as good as any other numbers pulled out of anyone's A**... A German AF pilot told me the flyaway cost for their eurofighters was over 200 million euros. His country is buying them, so I think he'd know.
So because he flew the EFs he shoulda know how much it did cost? Sure...
"Cost" is not like in cars and you know it very well; costs may, or may not, include training of the mechanics and pilots, armament & auxiliary equipments, spare parts... then the deal might be for a year, 5 or perhaps even 15 years...
in the long run NOBODY knows the exact cost of the fighters and saying some pilot knows it is naive.
-
I find it difficult to believe France would hire Boeing to do something Airbus could do, under ANY circumstances :(
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I find it difficult to believe France would hire Boeing to do something Airbus could do, under ANY circumstances :(
I find it difficult to understand how ignorant some can be. (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1247883&size=L&width=1200&height=814&sok=&photo_nr=175)
-
Damn, looks like outsourcing is starting to creep.
shamus
-
See Rule #4
-
Well, we all know what happened to the Romans when they relied on foreigners for their military.
back then swords.. today.. who builds the toys.
heh.
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
See Rule #7
NOT TO MENTION ITS FRENCH!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
:huh srsly wtf?? whats wrong with the AF now??
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
NOT TO MENTION ITS FRENCH!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
:huh srsly wtf?? whats wrong with the AF now??
Nooo.. it is Messerschmitt!
"Messerschmitt AG, later Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) was a famous German aircraft manufacturer, known primarily for its World War II fighter aircraft, notably the Bf 109 and Me 262. The company survived in the post-war era, undergoing a number of mergers and changing its name from Messerschmitt before being bought by DASA in 1989, now part of EADS. "
Also Heinkel and Focke Wulff are merged to same company.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Brownshirt
I find it difficult to understand how ignorant some can be. (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1247883&size=L&width=1200&height=814&sok=&photo_nr=175)
Fascinating--had no idea Airbus made early warning/awacs A/C:aok
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Fascinating--had no idea Airbus made early warning/awacs A/C:aok
Airbus makes airframes, so does Boeing. It was Northrop Grumman (Westinghouse) who built the E3's radar systems and radar assembly, not Boeing. Out of 18 different types of AEW&C aircraft in the world only two are based on Boeing airframes. ;)
The aging E3 with its big rotating pulse Doppler radar is getting increasingly obsolete. The future of AEW&C is smaller planes with electronically scanned phased array radars that are as powerful or more than the E3 but with much greater multitasking capabilities and flexibility, all in a much more compact and affordable package.
Like this Swedish Ericsson Erieye system for instance (Brazilian air force):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v128/chrisgee/Aviation/RIAT%202007%20-%20UK/Arrivals%20and%20Departures/_GEE8313copy.jpg)
Ericsson says that the Erieye costs between one eight and one tenth of an E-3 Sentry to operate and has quoted a cost of $500 per flight hour for the Erieye, compared to $2,700 for an E-2C Hawkeye and $8,300 for an E-3 Sentry.
The price of Brazil's Erieye systems was little more than $200 million per aircraft, or approximately the price of two fighter aircraft.
-
As far as I know frenchies are also more than capable to build radar systems; Thomson/Thales are well known radar system manufacturers and airbus manufacturer EADS happens to own MBDS which includes Matra and Alenia Marconi missile & radar manufacturers.
Perhaps USAF will have its Sentry's replaced by Airbuses too :D
-
Lol, I doubt it, but who knows. ;)
-
The Erieye is not as capable as the E3 by a long shot, but if you take the price of it and the plane it gets mounted on (basicly a free choise) it gives outstanding value. I dont know what id prefer but 8-10 of those would atleast add some flexibility that one E3 could not. I guess it would depend on your need.
-
What I would like to see is a KC-80, Airbus A380 airframe.
-
I think Thomson recently pulled out of everything but consumer electronics..
-
Still choices available from France and from Europe.
Oh looks like Frenchies are also having KC-135 fleet + C-130 Hercules transport aircrafts.
-
Originally posted by Brownshirt
Still choices available from France and from Europe.
Oh looks like Frenchies are also having KC-135 fleet + C-130 Hercules transport aircrafts.
euros are developing at a c-130 replacement...
(http://www.spacewar.com/images/aerospace-eads-a400m-bg.jpg)
-
Nilsen: The Erieye is not as capable as the E3 by a long shot.
That would depend on what you mean by "capable". If you mean range, then yes. The Erieye only has about half to two-thirds the range, but the Erieye is a much more modern AESA radar that combined with Ericsson's integrated systems suite is controlled directly from ground command centers instead of by operators in the aircraft itself. In theory the radar can be operated remotely by anyone in the network.
In what way do you think the E-3 is superior to the EMB-145/Erieye system beyond the maximum radar range?
"EMB-145 ERIEYE AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING AND CONTROL AIRCRAFT, BRAZIL
The EMB-145 AEW&C is a derivative of the Embraer ERJ-145 regional jetliner airframe, modified with the integration of an Airborne Early Warning radar and mission system. The aircraft incorporates a reinforced airframe, new navigation and communication systems, an enhanced auxiliary power unit (APU), increased fuel capacity and a revised interior layout. The EMB-145 AEW&C's mission system is developed around the Ericsson ERIEYE active, phased-array pulse-Doppler radar and is integrated with an onboard command and control system. Electronic surveillance measures for monitoring communications and non-communications activities are also integrated with the system.
In 1997, Embraer was awarded a contract to develop and produce the ERIEYE-based EMB-145 AEW&C (designated R-99A) aircraft, together with another version of the same aircraft, the EMB-145 RS Remote Sensing (designated R-99B) variant, for the Brazilian Government's SIVAM program. The Brazilian Air Force (FAB) ordered five AEW&C and three EMB-145 RS aircraft. The first AEW&C aircraft was delivered to the Brazilian Air Force in July 2002 and deliveries were completed in December 2003.
The Hellenic Air Force of Greece has ordered four EMB-145 AEW&C. The first was delivered in December 2003 and deliveries are expected to be completed by the end of 2004. Mexico has ordered one aircraft for border and coastline monitoring which was delivered in June 2004. Erieye radar systems have also been ordered by Sweden. In February 2005, Embraer signed a Memorandum of Understanding with India for the procurement of three systems.
A fleet of three aircraft is sufficient to sustain two airborne patrols around the clock for a limited time, or one airborne patrol with one aircraft on continuous ground alert for more than 30 days. Although capable of long endurance at normal patrol speeds, the EMB-145 has a high dash speed which contributes to survivability on patrol missions.
The EMB-145 AEW&C crew includes the pilot and copilot, five mission systems specialists and up to three reserve crew members. The aircraft is equipped with five or six mission operator consoles.
COCKPIT
The all-glass cockpit is fitted with five displays - primary flight displays, multi-function displays and the engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) - with multi-reversionary capabilities.
Avionic systems include full TCAS II (Traffic Alerting and Collision Avoidance), a ground proximity warning system (GPWS) and windshear detector. Dual digital air data computers drive the attitude and heading reference system (AHRS). The pilot is provided with a head-up display particularly for landing guidance. The aircraft has two radio altimeters and instrument landing system. A dual integrated computer controls the autopilot flight director (APFD), windshear detector and EICAS.
ERIEYE
ERIEYE has been developed by Ericsson Microwave Systems. The system comprises an active, phased-array pulse-Doppler radar including integrated secondary surveillance radar and identification friend or foe (SSR/IFF), a comprehensive, modular command-and-control system, electronic support measures (ESM), communications and datalinks.
Rather than conventional rotodome antenna system, ERIEYE has a fixed, dual-sided and electronically scanned antenna mounted on top of the fuselage. This places much less demand on aircraft size and is designed for mounting on commuter-type aircraft. The ERIEYE is capable of 360° detection and tracking of air and sea targets over the horizon. The instrumented range is 450km and a typical detection range against a fighter aircraft size target is in excess of 350km.
The system uses advanced solid-state electronics, open-system architecture and ruggedized commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware, including general-purpose programmable workstations and full-colour LCD displays. The ERIEYE radar is already in service with the Swedish Air Force and is in series production for Brazil and other customers."
-
To be honest I don’t very much like the F-22 or the Eurofighter. They are both too big, heavy and expensive. I believe in Northrop’s philosophy of keeping fighters small. In my opinion a fighter should be as small as practically possible, have a big engine, be simple and easy to maintain while having the most advanced weapons and sensors you are able to make/afford.
My current favourite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KHVeFs9Mto
I also greatly admire these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJIXb300AQk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fq4vWnU2E0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aIyaJmgqGY (Really cute, you can see the F-5/F-20 heritage.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9w5MEgc03s (Not exactly new, but I love it still.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA7Pwek0nEc (A bit on the heavy side, but still…)
-
I'm not sure I see the problem, I understand the A330 MRTT carries 20-25% more fuel, longer range, operates from smaller airfields and has a bigger capacity for cargo than a KC-767...was a winner for the RAAF and RAF...sounds like a winner for the USAF
Tronsky
-
Problems seems to be US got best plane instead of American plane ;)
-
Doesnt matter if its better. It has to be designed and made in USA or else its going to be nothing but trouble. Just see eagl's posts. ;)