rebuilt to what standard? the Turkish M60T standard? current production is 50 to 100?. without production numbers how can you maintain decent force in active duty. not like half backed Turkish invasion of Syria.
According to my files, more than 1,500 early-model Merkavas have been built, and current production is 50-100 per year. By Western standards, that is a good production run. But why are you so obsessed with production numbers? Zeiss makes a small number of lenses in a year compared with the huge production runs by Nikon and Canon, yet Zeiss is still widely regarded as making the best.
like doors of Boeing made in India. you have serious misunderstanding between subcontract work and actual new development.
Like the wings of the F-35?
It is not just MIG29K that got tested but Syrian MIG29s also.
Trial by Fire: MiG Chief Tells Sputnik That MiG-29s Proved Themselves Over Syria
I'd like to add that the Syrian Air Force has also conducted operations using MiG-29s that were delivered to them earlier, and have also showed their high effectiveness," the director added
Syria has an estimated 30 MiG-29A, MiG-29UB and MiG-29SM aircraft in its arsenal.
I do not know if the Indians were involved in the design of the doors they are making, or if Israel's share in the F-35 development process involved design work on the wing.
By the way, doors are not as simple as some might think. If they were, a certain Soviet airliner manufacturer would not have given its US counterpart a contract 30 or more years ago to help with the development of doors for Soviet airliners. (Given that this happened half my lifetime ago, I cannot remember the names of the US and Soviet companies that were involved.)
But enough of this - it is Valentine's day. So I am off to wine and dine my wife - that will be much more fun that arguing about planes and how they are built.
You can see the Turkish content in the T-129 program. Turkish Aerospace Industries was Prime Contractor with AgustaWestland as Engineering Support and Integration Partner.
The T-129 uses Turkish mission computer, avionics, radar, Flir and weapons systems.
The T-129 also has a METEKSAN of Turkey Millimetre Wave Radar similar to the Apache Longbow. One would note that AgustaWestland AW129's did not have such a fire control radar system to transfer to Turkey.
Last edited by Bayar; 15th February 2017 at 02:41.
you don't have any evidence of 600 Merkeva 4 in active inventory.
I was talking about production of new Israeli Merkavas - why are you talking about rebuilds and the Turkish M60T? That 50-100 figure I cited is for annual (yearly) Merkava Mk 4 production - which has been under way since 2004. So even at 50 a year, the current fleet would be around 600, enough for major combat operations.
The point is many countries are doing sub contract and assembling kind of work. What is that Embarer producing?. this is not called advanced engineering. now I don't have word that is more advanced than advanced to differentiate less advanced countries form advanced countries that don't need external assistance in producing original work.
During decades spent working in the aerospace industry I had experience of development, production, repair, and pure research tasks, so can tell the difference between development and subcontract work. But MSphere simply asked about "airframe work" and was not specifically asking about development work.
I am sure all design comes from LM design office to a very minute detail with weight and tolerance of each component. you claim to be understanding engineering and don't understand basics of computerized modeling.I do not know if the Indians were involved in the design of the doors they are making, or if Israel's share in the F-35 development process involved design work on the wing.
I did not say it simple. Soviet days and that method of development is gone. Soviet scientist are already flushed out to other places. Russia has now more younger brains and they seem to be producing more effective systems.By the way, doors are not as simple as some might think. If they were, a certain Soviet airliner manufacturer would not have given its US counterpart a contract 30 or more years ago to help with the development of doors for Soviet airliners. (Given that this happened half my lifetime ago, I cannot remember the names of the US and Soviet companies that were involved.)
I don't think its enough.But enough of this - it is Valentine's day. So I am off to wine and dine my wife - that will be much more fun that arguing about planes and how they are built.
This thread is becoming boring. I have better things to do with my time.
I mean why it become famous like household name from where the practical technology came. very small percentage of people read scientific papers.The word plasma was first used by I Langmuir in his 1928 paper "Oscillations in Ionized Gases".
your data has no relationship with real world. it is like tanks in storage or aircrafts with G limit that cant be upgrade with new engine.You have never visited my office, so cannot claim to know what data is in my files, let alone the data in the technical libraries that I have access to.
Yup it has Russian technology to refine it to current standards. you fail to realize that education systems of a lot of countries have fallen apart that's why they need external help to improve there existing products.Don't you mean Embraer? Their product range includes the rather nice Embraer 190 airliner I used for a business trip last year. I hope that you are not going to claim that it was designed and built by Soviet émigrés.
Embraer Teams With Russia's TsAGI
Last June, Embraer rented one of TsAGI's 60 wind tunnels to help fine-tune the ERJ-170/190 regional jet design
In: Press Releases
EMBRAER SIGNS AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA’S PREMIER AERODYNAMICS RESEARCH CENTER
TsAGI possesses over 80 years experience in developing
leading-edge aviation technologyhttp://www.rusbiznews.com/news/n2739.html
Embraer, a Brazilian aircraft manufacturer, announced VSMPO-AVISMA the Supplier of 2016.
you made inaccurate statements about Russian systems before and you got corrected several times on that.While not claiming to be an expert on the topic, I recently helped an international defence consultancy with a computer modelling problem that they had. So I must have some useful knowledge of the subject.
This thread is becoming boring. I have better things to do with my time.
Congratulations! One of your responses (the one about plasma) actually had a direct relationship with the point you were responding to. That does not happen very often. When I steered you (for example) to information on weapon-platform upgrades, you responded by changing the subject and asking about UK tank production and inventory. The experience is a bit like communicating with a chatbot, and I see no point in continuing these exchanges.
By the way, the fact that the aerospace industry in one country will sometimes use the specialist test facilities in another country will not be news to any experienced aerospace engineer. It is not uncommon – two programmes that I worked on did this. This indicated nothing about the relative skills of their aerospace industry and ours. It was simply that their facility allowed specific test conditions that were not possible at our equivalent national facilities.
Interesting, Su-35 back from Syria: 10 ground strikes per bomb, and 1 aerial victory....
So who's drone?
US. Turkey, Israel. Just pick one.
Hmmm, these ones have it too...not sure it signifies an A2A victory in this case (unless we are talking makeshift rebel drones?)
Did not realize how many ground missions the Su-35s have flown though.
Brazil is not a kid in regional airlines business. they have built them in thousands for decades now but as things get more complex and advance they started need external help more and more.By the way, the fact that the aerospace industry in one country will sometimes use the specialist test facilities in another country will not be news to any experienced aerospace engineer. It is not uncommon – two programmes that I worked on did this. This indicated nothing about the relative skills of their aerospace industry and ours. It was simply that their facility allowed specific test conditions that were not possible at our equivalent national facilities.
do you see advance aerodynamics and materials in this picture?
Also what is that with Turkey can produce almost everything to build an F-16? Please...
Even locally designed trainer aircraft delayed by years (even though it was using all the off-the-shelf components possible) and TuAF had to buy KT-1 from Korea.
And finally, this is off-topic but good fun.
Tu-95s launched cruise missiles against ISIS yesterday.
https://www.rt.com/news/377758-russi...rs-isis-raqqa/Russian strategic bombers hit ISIS in Raqqa in coordination with Pentagon via ‘deconfliction line’
Russian Tu-95 bombers have struck Islamic State (IS, former ISIS/ISIL) targets in Syria's Raqqa region using X-101 cruise missiles, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement, adding that it informed the US about the operation.
“On February 17, 2017, strategic missile carrying Tu-95 bombers made an operational flight from the territory of the Russian Federation over the territories of Iran and Iraq and conducted an air strike against Islamic State terrorists’ objectives in the Raqqa region using X-101 cruise missiles,” the ministry’s statement says.
Last edited by TEEJ; 18th February 2017 at 17:09.
As for Turkey not producing F-16's I direct your attention to the following:
The Turks not only produce every critical component in the TuAF F-16's they also have many indigenous sub-systems.
The most ambitious is the Aselsan AESA
your simply not even understanding that Turkey industrialist and procurement policy are big flop despite being in Nato for 50 or more years. both India and Pakistan has more and modern tanks than you.
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)