F-35 first flight

edit---double post

 

Worse than you thought? I thought I was the one that said the US spent far more on military R&D than everyone else combined and you doubted it.

Back to the topic. Now tell me what the US aircraft industry needs to learn from the Euros? Will they get more advanced stealth technology? new advanced composite materials? more advanced computerized flight controls? more advanced weapons systems avionics? More advanced air to air missles?
You accuse me of thinking that everything US is better than anyone elses yet I think I'm speaking about facts here not chauvinism.

BTW If I'm merely chauvinistic then why do I own a Toyota and two Hondas

That brings us back to my original post. What specifically do you think the US is going to gain from such an arrangement? I'm curious.

 

The ability to produce them cheaper? Using Euro's to supplement the dollar.

 

I don't think so. A weak dollar is great for exporters (such as aircraft manufacturers) as it makes US exports more competitive.
I think it is a common misconception that a collaboration will result in savings through lower development costs but in reality it never turns out that way.
In any case if marginal savings were achieved would it be worth it considering the mostly one way transfer of advanced technology?
I mentioned that we should share with the Brits because it has worked out well for both parties in the past. For example the US gained considerably from the British developed Chobham armor (despite the fact that the US modified it somewhat) and the Brits have gotten technology boosts in the areas of nuclear submarines and SLBMs from the US, to name a few mutually beneficial areas. Most other European countries despite being allies in the sense that we would be on the same side in any ultimate confrontation (at least I think so) are more competitors than collaborators.
Not that that is such a bad thing. Competition drives innovation.

 

What facts? I had to get most of them myself...and for the rest you give me a chauvinistic opinion no facts!
You can't say anything on how advanced the flight systems of the latest airctaft are as they are all clasified (So is the F-22 for instance more advanced than a Typhoon?) but still how much better (in Money) is a F-22 vs it's competitors

How the hell am i supposed to know what they should gain...im not an technology expert (although i do know Dutch radar are the best in the world for decades) but tell me why would a country wich spend so much on R&D need help from other countries if they could gain anything from them?
It's simple the US can learn from there partners...atleast the US government thinks so

 

In my usual fashion, I'm gonna pick up a few points that I want to reply to.


#1 - the EU is NOT a country. Shame on a European for making that argument. Adding together the military budget of all the EU countries and comparing it to the USA's is not valid, because the EU is a collection of countries all working on their own, entirely seperate militarys, and all with their own little research budgets and projects. The USA's military budget is bigger than that of any other country, end of story.

#2 - Grieg, are you too full of good cheer? You defeated your own argument!

In the case of the F-35 project, I believe that the British input was emgine-related, and RR are still one of the world's leading engine manufacturers. The fact that the US chose to cut their engine out of the package slightly dents that argument ( ) but does not cancel the idea that they might have recieved a gain there.

#3 - Chauvanism? Oh for...
I do admit that Grieg can get a bit over-excited about America's achievements , but whether you like it or not he's usually correct. And it is nice to have a strong set of debators who stick up for the USA, which (along with France) tends to be the punchbag of public opinion. If you want to argue against it, provide facts (or arguments) that prove him wrong.

 

Who said it was?
Stil the European Union tries to compare itself in the European Defence Agency to a USA vs EU kind of way

http://www.eda.europa.eu/

So he can say anything without providing facts... :roll:

 

They really should know better...

As I said, it is a meaningless comparison.

Yes, as can you. But if you want to counter such a statement, do so properly. As others should do against you.

A debate of "I say X" vs "I say Y" is pointless.

A debate of "I say X" vs "I say Y because ABC" is better

A debate of "I say X because PQR" vs "I say Y because ABC" is best of all in my view. I dislike the standpoint of "you need to provide facts not me, because I made the original statement." If you think its true, back it up. I make unsupported posts all the time, but if somebody disputes it I provide evidence. Or fold like wet cardboard, whichever.

 

Fact number 1: the US R&D budget is greater than the rest of the world.(disputed by you)
Fact number 2: US export versions of military aircraft are frequently different than the US military version(disputed by you).

Opinions that are so prevalent as to rise to the level of facts:
US manufacturers lead the world in certain tecnologies; stealth, computers, advanced composite materials, etc.

Your logic is flawed.
The fact that the US joins in collaborative ventures does not prove that the US thinks that they will learn from other countries. There are other reasons for joining in collaborative ventures, mostly political.

 

Maybe, but I didn't see it that way since I have indicated that I think of the UK as an exception. The very high level of technology that comes from Britain offsets the much lower budget IMO. Britain has some very brainy people who can make do with a lot less and still produce some excellent results.

 

Fact # 1 I had to proove you were right...next time you proove you are right!

Fact # 2 wasn't a fact...
BTW you stated: In the past the export versions of US aircraft were different than what the US military got....and i prooved correctly that NATO versions were the same as US versions and i even prooved they could be built be other countries!

Your logic is flawed even more as in that case as mostly political is not all reasons (and i can think atleast of one other reason)!

BTW if we are talking tanks again...Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH say anything to you?

 

So that last part really says that all the R&D the US spends had better be spend in the UK....much more balls for less money :lol:

Now you are also suggesting that brittons are smarter than the rest of the wrold including the US of A?!

It's getting beter and better!

This is from a English newspaper....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 19,00.html
Best part is that they don't even realise that the first place is shared by 2 countries

 

Last post by me of this topic unless some new data is presented. The rancor is getting tiresome.
It is indeed a fact that can be demonstrated as I stated that in the past the US as a matter of practice (never stated there were NO exceptions) sold export versions of military aircraft that were of less capablilty than the US version.
I don't care WHO proves that I'm right. Persoanlly I prefer it when others prove that I'm right rather than doing it myself. Besises I don't have unlimited time to search out sources, even when I know I'm right.

I didn't state that political reasons were the only reasons. You are the one that stated that since the US was proceeding with collaboration that it must necessarrily follow that they were learning something from the other countries. That assumption is not supported and that doesn't necessarily follow since there are other possible reasons to proceed with the collaboration.
Really this kind of logic is so basic and easily understood that I don't intend to keep restating the obvious.

Keep your delusions of grandeur if you so desire

ps I find it kind of ironic that a Dutch person is pursuing this line inasmuch as AFAIK all of your fixed wing fighter aircraft and attack helicopters are American designs not to mention the Patriot and Stinger missles.

 

Nope. Didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.
I don't put much stock in IQ scores by the way, you are free to think differently.

 

Sorry to derail this even more, but what are those inferior US export planes? And on what basis? Avionics and/or performance? Can you give me some samples?

Yeah, I know very little of these things :-?

 

A ready example that comes to mind; the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia had "downgraded" avionics and no provision for conformal fuel tanks.
Google US military aircraft exports or something of that nature and you can find more examples.

That being said. The policy that MANDATED that export versions must be less than US versions has long since been changed.

 

The same will count in my view as i never stated that it was the only reason..i stated that it was a reason...and if you think that "That assumption is not supported" i wonder by whom...i can only think of you and in my opinion (and i guess the rest of the world including the US Government) you are NOT that important to exclude " technology advances" for both sides as a reason...and that is just a fact.....but maybe you just can't understand that with your basic logic and understanding

 

Like i said before that policy was changed the moment it came to life (posted earlier)

 

Seems to me there's loads of export versions from aircraft, that exceeds the performance of the original US version. Like German and Italian F-104S and G, Austrian and Finnish Hornets, UAE Vipers and German Phantoms. Of course there were "lesser" export versions also, like Pakistani Vipers (which never get to their destination), Japanese F-15Js (deleted ECM suite) and those said Saudi-Arabian Eagles.

Looks like USA is picky about who it sells top of the line models.

Thanks Grieg for the insight

 

As i'm not chauvinsitic in any way i really don't care where they are from...if they work and do their job it's great and if the Dutch can put something in it altough it may be little it's even better!(that was my point all along)