|
Hell is having to keep Turkey in NATO somehow.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:This. I wonder if even the Russians can keep straight how true this is vs just bring a thing they say to avoid embarrassment. "Uh, the Admiral Kuznetsov is just the export model we put all the miles on. Be assured that if we need to throw down with the capitalists, we have a perfectly good secret carrier that doesn't smoke like a tire fire and break down all the time."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I wonder if even the Russians can keep straight how true this is vs just bring a thing they say to avoid embarrassment. There are some export variants that are legitimately worse than the domestic stuff. Most of it wasn't, though, and was simply one or two generations older than the newest tech. Like the T-72M1 the Iraqis bought in the 80's was basically a slightly upgraded domestic production T-72A circa 1979. It wasn't the cutting edge T-72B of the time, nor was it the premium T-64/80 series, and they didn't sell the Iraqis the newest ammo to use with it - but it was equivalent to the mountain of T-72A's still in use by Russian Red Army units at the time using the same 1-2 generation old stockpiled ammo most of those units would have been using. As a more relevant example the exported Kub systems were identical to the domestic Kub - with many of those Egypt got coming directly from Red Army stocks at a time when it was still a cutting edge SAM. But yeah, they often didn't sell the newest generation stuff and sometimes they did openly downgrade stuff either for price or technology transfer concerns. Then came the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War. Suddenly a lot of historical buyers are getting cold feet about buying Soviet weapons after Iraq's televised stomping, there's a glut of older equipment on the market already, and Russia now has to compete for those sales with everyone else selling weapons on the planet at a time when they need those foreign defense contracts to keep the lights on. Old weapons like those Iraq used won't sell. Downgraded stuff isn't going to be competitive and the buyers can simply go elsewhere. So, since the 90's Russia has been selling their cutting edge stuff and they advertise heavily on advanced features to keep them competitive - selling downgraded crap and getting caught would devastate the Russian arms industry. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
OK, so friends I've laughed alongside of you for many years about procurement fuckups Canada of course is second to none in this field, but I always felt I had the thread of the plot until now, and I think I need help understanding what this is, if this happens in other nations because, ahem, Last week the Globe and Mail revealed the Liberal government had allowed Irving Shipbuilding to claim a $40-million industrial benefit credit for an Alberta french fry factory as part of a contract to provide the Royal Canadian Navy with new Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships. Oh, and not for the first time questions from the media to the Fed are suddenly answered with threats of (absolutely baseless) lawsuits by Irving Who are apparently keeping files on journalists (not really clear if that's the fed or Irving) One time David Pugliese called the DND and his called was returned first by Irving's legal department, and then later by Irving's CEO
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, so friends IDK about threats from the company, but misdirecting the government about what business is where to get subsidies, or other deception to get govt money, happens everywhere. Its so pervasive in the United States theres an entire area of litigation dedicated to it where whistle blowers can collect a portion of the governments settlement. These are called qui tam actions which are lawsuits brought by people on behalf of the government. Here are 346 examples of this: https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=r&q=&type=r&order_by=score+desc&nature_of_suit=376
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
The thing about exporting SAM systems is it is very, very simple to nerf them or alter them or whatever via software. The physical engineering of a SAM system isn't that hard...no aerodynamics or LO or any of that stuff, its just a bunch of trucks with missiles and radars, none of which are particularly hard to manufacture. A huge percentage (I'd say...most?) of a SAMs effectiveness comes from the quality of its supporting software, which, if encrypted and so on, is virtually opaque to the operator. So Russia can send S-400s all over, or the US, Patriots, and not be too concerned with loving themselves later because the software can be carefully controlled and give a lot of influence over the operation of the system. Your only concern then is if the customer manipulates the software in violation of the export agreement, like when Israel hacked the Patriot gibson a while back. Software is important on aircraft also, but far less so than with SAMs. A ton of the F-35's technological value is in its physical engineering, which is impossible to conceal from either your customer or from a competitor on the opposite side of the customer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK, so friends This is what happens when a family is allowed to own an entire province, and parts of a couple of others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Raytheon and UT announced merging today but with UT selling Sikorsky is there any big names here? Pratt is owned by UT I think? I know they both have huge footprints in assorted sectors just trying to remember exactly what is combining here. EDIT: UT owns Rockwell Collins too Mazz fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
UT also owns Otis Elevators, but they're getting spun off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So Russia can send S-400s all over, or the US, Patriots, and not be too concerned with loving themselves later because the software can be carefully controlled and give a lot of influence over the operation of the system. IF target.id == “B777” THEN target.iff = “hostile”
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:IF target.id == “A300” THEN target.iff = “hostile” Fixed for the USN version that they copy/pasted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Godholio posted:UT also owns Otis Elevators, but they're getting spun off. And Carrier (as in the air conditioning manufacturer). I assume they're likely to be spun off along with Otis. What was Hamilton Standard (propellors) is also a part of UTC, and along with Goodrich and Rockwell Collins is now a subsidiary of Collins Aerospace. UTC also runs the United Technologies Research Center (UTRC), which does a lot of interesting things for all of their business groups, although even today a number of people there that I know are still working on Sikorsky projects so it may not affect much immediately. A merger between UTC and Raytheon doesn't seem too bad from a business point of view; they don't seem to have too much overlap, despite both being major defense contractors. That said, if they're plan was to go all in on defense, selling Sikorsky seems weird in retrospect! Tetraptous fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:A merger between UTC and Raytheon doesn't seem too bad from a business point of view; they don't seem to have too much overlap, despite both being major defense contractors. That said, if they're plan was to go all in on defense, selling Sikorsky seems weird in retrospect!
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:And Carrier (as in the air conditioning manufacturer). I assume they're likely to be spun off along with Otis. What was Hamilton Standard (propellors) is also a part of UTC, and along with Goodrich and Rockwell Collins is now a subsidiary of Collins Aerospace. UTAS is a loving gigantic conglomerate of aerospace subsystems. They bought up dozens of previously smaller companies that make electro mechanical parts sold to the integrators.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
brains posted:UTC's been fairly transparent in their goals so far- divest all major end item production (i.e. Sikorsky) and try to acquire all major aerospace parts manufacturing. Being the prime integrator is a different set of skills and capabilities than being a component provider of even major components. So I can see the logic there. However, I’ve always been under the impression that the big bucks are in integration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Being the prime integrator is a different set of skills and capabilities than being a component provider of even major components. So I can see the logic there. The big total bucks are, but your margins are thin AF on a cost plus contract that is 40% outsourced. Now if you're the prime on a FMS contract such that the FARs don't apply...
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Raytheon and UT announced merging today but with UT selling Sikorsky is there any big names here? Pratt is owned by UT I think? I know they both have huge footprints in assorted sectors just trying to remember exactly what is combining here. Kinda, UT is a parent company of P&W... but P&W is still an independent company. The fact they are moving to Waltham (In my old employer's buildings no less) is a bit of a shock, but MA is handing out tax breaks like candy right now as a lot of companies are leaving MA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:I wonder if even the Russians can keep straight how true this is vs just bring a thing they say to avoid embarrassment. I can really only speak 100% for airframes. The SU-27 that was sold to other countries was lacking. There was even a joke about the K designation on the Su-27. They called them kolymaga. Literally jalopy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:I can really only speak 100% for airframes. The Su-27k is the Su-33. It does have a reputation for being old and in bad shape, because the Russian Navy's Su-33 fleet has historically been neglected. The Su-27SK was China's own thing, built with an eye for domestic production, and more or less a stopgap plane until the J-11 was churning out. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
You gotta train the plant workers on something, before you produce your own stolen version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You gotta train the plant workers on something, before you produce your own stolen version. They just straight up lifted the Su-33 design for the carrier planes. No licensing or anything. The Su-27k was like the consolation prize where they figured maybe we shouldn't screw Russia completely, let's buy a few before we make our own I guess??
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:The Su-27k is the Su-33. It does have a reputation for being old and in bad shape, because the Russian Navy's Su-33 fleet has historically been neglected. SK: export UBK: export 2-seater SKM: export 30MK: export The SK is also in use by Vietnam (as well as the UBK), Ethiopia, Indonesia, Eritrea, Angolia (Supposedly SK's)...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:SK: export So, out of that pretty varied list what issues do you think they have that the domestic flanker variants don't? Flankers have always been maintenance hogs and a lot of the big contract order variants like Indian and Malaysian 30MKs are pretty drat capable compared to most of the Russian domestic fleet. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
The later export variants are a lot less mickey mouse. I suspect because the Russians have put more effort into their SAM development since the 90s and because they expected to be a lot further along on their next-gen aircraft. Back in the day, they had worse EW, avionics, radars, missile integration, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The later export variants are a lot less mickey mouse. I suspect because the Russians have put more effort into their SAM development since the 90s and because they expected to be a lot further along on their next-gen aircraft. Back in the day, they had worse EW, avionics, radars, missile integration, etc. This. There was a reason I specifically said Su-27, and not the 30 series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
I think China's supersonic jet trainer is just adorable     
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
The Sausages posted:I think China's supersonic jet trainer is just adorable Oh yeah. I want that little guy in my garage. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Uh...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Uh... Honestly had my brain spin for 15 seconds before accepting that thing is in fact, a F-16, but I still have a doubt (is it a F-CK?). I think i dislike the color more than the swole bumps. Insert beautiful picture of clean F-16A here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
The Sausages posted:I think China's supersonic jet trainer is just adorable Is this one based off that Italian Ukrainian trainer jet or homegrown?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Uh... Ah yes the F-17
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
movax posted:Honestly had my brain spin for 15 seconds before accepting that thing is in fact, a F-16, but I still have a doubt (is it a F-CK?). I think i dislike the color more than the swole bumps. Sir, that's a Pakistani jf-17. It's Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:Is this one based off that Italian Ukrainian trainer jet or homegrown? Comparing it against a Yak-130, it's pretty drat similar yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
 That's a lot of maintenance hours right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Zhanism posted:Is this one based off that Italian Ukrainian trainer jet or homegrown? As most Chinese stuff, while home-grown, its a knock of the Yakovlev Yak-130.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:
But enough about the 53 Echos in the back...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:As most Chinese stuff, while home-grown, its a knock of the Yakovlev Yak-130. Nah, it was co-developed with Yakovlev but with all Chinese internals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:As most Chinese stuff, while home-grown, its a knock of the Yakovlev Yak-130. It's pretty significantly different from a Yak-130, as far as design.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
The Sausages posted:I think China's supersonic jet trainer is just adorable This brings up a question - is it still the case that Russian and Chinese engines are expected to be of lower quality (re: performance but mostly maintenance/reliability) compared to their western counterparts? I know for a long time it was said here that an engine from one of those countries would need a major overhaul after X number of hours, where X is far lower than a US or EU counterpart. Also that flying them beyond their performance envelope may either destroy the engine or require a major overhaul in and of itself, regardless of flight hours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:Sir, that's a Pakistani jf-17. It's Chinese.  It is so ugly and confusing to look at
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:04
|
|