Peak Chocolate?!?
The ABC reports on a looming disaster:
The council says the world’s consumption of chocolate is unsustainable and that the sweet treat could be as rare as caviar by 2030.
The cocoa bean shortage is being blamed on drought in West Africa and plant-eating pests in Indonesia.
This is one of those effects of global warming that we are supposed to ignore. The waves washing over island nations don’t get through, nor the loss of Arctic habitat, so, I guess we can just ignore the loss of chocolate.
27 comments
It’s all a plot by Cadbury to destroy the *real* chocolate competition (and the Belgian economy) 😈 It won’t bother Cadbury much, since it’s been years since they have used much (if any) cocoa in their (for want of a better word) *chocolate* products! Most of their products are 60% (or more) sugar, so if there was a sugar shortage, then they’d have a problem! 😆 Just goes to prove, most people really have no taste or sense. It’s no wonder Dentists are laughing all the way to the bank, and diabetes is a growing global problem. 😉
It will be a problem for me (assuming I’m still around) as I only occasionally eat chocolate with at least 80% cocoa content. *sigh* But it won’t make any difference to the great unwashed masses that would consume doggy doo if it had enough sugar and was in a pretty wrapper! 😈
The cocoa cartel doesn’t pay farmers a decent price for the beans that are produced, so people don’t expand production. When the Ivory Coast, a major producer, was in turmoil, no one pick up the slack to expand production. The money just isn’t there to justify it.
The farmers are being screwed over by nature and commodity markets.
like single malt scotch, i used to be able to get single bean chocolate bars [all of them dark chocolate of course] at my local co-op, and ivory coast was one of my favorites.
For a long time one of my on-line correspondents was Suzanne Felchlin, the widow of the head of Max Felchlin AG in Switzerland. She would occasionally ship me a package of the private family chocolates. They were obviously evil, sinful, and illegal in most of the world.
She was an amazing lady, who was active and involved her entire life.
Update: Her Max was the son of the original Max Felchlin.
Oooh!! Bryan.. you lucky sonuvagun! (I could hate you for this ya know!) 😉 😀
Kidding, of course. 🙂 Yeah, amazing people like Ms Felchlin can help shape ones own life. 🙂
OT: Just saw this at the ABC news site, made me a bit melancholy (for a great number of reasons). End of a (long) era. *sigh*
F-111 farewell: RAAF’s ‘pigs’ no longer fly
Of course, I’ve known for quite some time it was coming. I worked at GD because of the ‘pigs’ (3 of us were involved in designing/developing the PAVETAC system for them. I’m sure you would know that PAVETAC was designed to give the FB-111 a more advanced ‘strategic’ role. And that’s all I’ll say about it). People (including many Aussies) still don’t really understand why Aus is the ONLY Nation outside the USA to have F-111’s. Most people think they are just a big fighter! 😆 Ignorance really is bliss. Did you know they had 5 different bomb bay configurations alone? 😉 They were really one of the first and most versatile true ‘multi-purpose’ military aircraft built. 😀 Before it was given the official designation F-111 (or FB-111) it was called the TFX.
The ‘pig’ is the reason I ended up in Fort Worth, Texas all those years ago (the GD plant that manufactured much of the FB-111 were there, GDFW).
Ahhh well… memories… 😉 🙂
Yeah…knew about this. Just don’t want to think about it….it’s too scary a thought
http://cookiesinheaven.blogspot.com/2010/11/peak-chocolate.html
Kryten, it’s no secret anymore that the FB-111’s original design was intended to fly nuclear strikes, heck, it even made the Wikipedia page :).
Cookiejill: Yes, as a confirmed chocoholic, I am decidedly heartbroken about this. The only thing I can think of that would be even worse would be if they predicted the extinction of herring :(.
– Badtux the Glow-in-the-dark Culinary Penguin
Ummm Duh, bt! 😀 😛
My point is that the USA & Aus sold the public a load of BS when the USA essentially *ordered* Aus to buy F-111’s around ’67 even before they were delivered to the USAF!! Think about it… 😉 Hell, we actually took delivery of the first two out of 10 produced! (Though, they had several faults, and had to be shipped back. We finally took delivery in ’73, too late to be used for the purpose the USA originally sold them to us to be used for!) They were shipped back to GDFW on Dec. 9, ’68. I have some photo’s taken by my boss and a couple USAF engineers working at GDFW. There is a sequence of an F-111 with ’02’ painted on the bare tail on the way to the paint shop, and coming out with A8-125. This was simply a political marketing deception for the press during the acceptance ceremony. Wouldn’t have done back then to have people wondering why we were getting them before the USAF! 😆 BTW, I am talking about the ‘C’ variant (F-111C), which was supposedly the one with all the bugs ironed out. The fact that the two we were delivered in ’68 didn’t came back until ’73 I think speaks volumes about their actual readiness for deployment! Another reason they were delayed until ’73 is that the Boeing AGM-69 SRAM’s had a lot of problems also, including dud warheads. Last I heard, SAC still has about 1,500 of these SRAM’s to be used by modded B-52G & H’s. They are expected to have at least a 10% failure rate. 🙂 Oh! The first couple also had the wrong cammo paintwork! 😆 They painted them to the French standard, and not RAAF, so they had to be repainted! (No idea what GD were smoking that day!)
And once again Kissinger’s plans were foiled by the inability to get things done right! 😉 Still… we got some good aircraft without actually having to nuke anyone, that we would never otherwise have gotten! 😛 😆
I love irony! 😀
Sorry Bryan, still OT (I want to add something to the above)
A couple memo’s I saw (and have copies of) might help to *clarify* (at least, if you know how and why *things are done*). 😉
Firstly, in the early 60’s, the RAAF wanted to buy the British TSR2. Promises had been made, and the TSR2 was going to enter production because of our order. After a trip to Washington, Sir Robert Menzies (our PM at the time) communicated to the then UK PM Sir Alec Douglas-Home that he had decided not to order the TSR2 on favor of the TSX (F-111A) (And the *you-know-what* seriously hit the proverbial fan because of THAT I can tell you), Menzies stated the strategic significance of the decision, which would sustain the United States’ interest ‘in this corner of the world’.
Then US Defense Secretary McNamara stated:
“This is the only time, to my knowledge, that a foreign Government has made a firm purchase commitment for a military aircraft before the plane has flown”.
The then US Air Force Secretary, Eugene Zuckert, also paid tribute:
“The great confidence the Australians have shown in deciding to purchase the F-111 early in its development has been more than gratifying. Their investment in the program came only after careful study and deliberation so their optimism, and faith in the program have given us added incentive…There is no finer camaraderie anywhere than that of our Air Force personnel and the men of the Royal Australian Air Force. Our wish is that the F-111 will help it to grow.”
Because of this decision, the TSR2 production was completely canceled, and many within Australia and the UK were very annoyed by Menzies decision.
Although officially Australia ordered the F-111A, at the end of September 1966, HQ USAF directed that the FB-111A be designated the F-111C for the RAAF. The FB-111 had longer wings for extended range and strengthened undercarriage for the greater all up payload capability and weight. The RAAF order was changed to indicate these *modification* requirements to the F-111A. In fact, the primary difference between the F-111A and the FB-111A was that the FB-111A could carry the thermonuclear AGM_69 SRAM or the TX-61 variable-yield retarded bomb.
Officially, to this day, Australia has never had a nuclear weapons capability, or any nuclear weapons. 😉 🙂
We are also very good poker players! 😆
One of the things *not* on the Wikipedia page is why the Navy originally wanted the F-111. The Wikipedia page claims the Navy wanted it as a fighter. Uhm, no. During the original conception, the notion was that the U.S. was preparing for a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. What use was an aircraft carrier to such an affair? The Navy’s carrier mafia was terrified that some cost-cutting DoD chief would axe their beloved carriers in favor of more nuclear missile submarines or long-range bombers. Well, the Navy’s first answer to that was the A-5, which was optimized for delivering nuclear weapons from carrier decks, but it was optimized for high altitude use and better Soviet SAM’s rendered it obsolete for its intended purpose soon after reaching carrier decks. Then That Bastard McNamara came in with his penchant for wanting one fighter for everything (thus why the F-4 Phantom was forced upon all services), and gosh darn it if he didn’t decide to do it again by having the F-111 replace both the A-5 *and* the F-4.
Of course, it was delivered *way* too late to be of any use for that purpose either, heh. Vietnam had proven the utility of floating airports off the shore of hostile nations so the carrier force was safe and no longer needed to justify its existence with notions of nuclear strikes flown from its decks. The notion of delivering nuclear weapons from carrier-borne aircraft was declared daft due to improvements in cruise missiles, and the A-6 and A-7 had long since fulfilled the Navy’s tactical attack jet needs. The naval variant of the F-111 proved to be completely inappropriate for carrier fighter use to replace the F-4, and the Navy developed the F-14 Tomcat instead, which had the advantage of starting development after the lessons of the F-111 had been learned and could take advantage of some of the same technologies (such as the jet engines developed for the F-111 and the swing wing technology) but in an updated more compact package better suited to carrier decks and better optimized for the desired purpose of long-range force protection. So That Bastard McNamara’s desire to have one jet for everything — fighter, bomber, army, navy — ended up producing something that was useful only for, err, Australia, in the end, and that primarily because of Australia’s unique challenges. It’s just amazing that the thing was in service with Australia for so many years, and while the Super Bug is a good jet, it’s definitely not a full replacement for the F-111, lacking, amongst other things, that internal bomb bay with its many uses that you hint at :).
It’s amazing really. the F-111 was really a lame duck, the problems with it seemed endless! But we (RAAF) were able to make them work, and work very well. (it’s one reason why Ausie engineers have been sent to GD from ’67 to the 90’s). For example, we helped develop the ‘low stress wing carry through box’ (as the original design was a disaster), and cold proof load testing. The fact is, our F-111C’s have been the most reliable and versatile aircraft we’ve had since WW2! The F/A-18’s have been problematic. And now, our stupid Gov is going to replace the F-111C & F/A-18 with crappy and ridiculously expensive F-35’s! Especially given the fact that it has been proven that our F-111C’s can easily, and relatively inexpensively, have their operational life extended to 2020! I think our *neighbors* in our neck of the woods would be far less likely to cause serious trouble knowing we have a fleet of 21 thermonuclear capable F-111’s (especially when each can carry 6 SRAMS and thanks to PAVETAC and other mod’s, each of the 6 can be launched at 6 different targets within a radius of about 150km (at altitude, 55km ‘on the deck’) of the bomber)! The RAAF in conjunction with the USAF developed a low-level bombing technique called ‘shoot and scoot’. It’s very effective. 🙂 However, that said… one HUGE problem with the F-111 is that it’s extremely difficult to upgrade to new tech! It has virtually zero room (physically I mean) to grow! We had a hell of a job integrated PAVETACK (getting the pod on a pylon was a piece of cake! Integrating the electronics and new component modules was a nightmare!) And getting the AGM-142 Popeye’s integrated was worse (though it did happen, eventually). I don’t actually have a problem retiring the F-111’s per se. I do have a problem with replacing them with yet another (and potentially far worse) *lame duck*! 🙂
And yes, you are correct about the third Navy variant. I was privy to many *mess hall* type umm… *colorful discussions* about them. 😆
The requirements for carrier-born thermonuclear capable air assets changed when the Navy changed to Carrier Battle Group’s (CVBG) and recently to Carrier Strike Group’s (CSG). The CSG includes AEGIS Ticonderoga Class Cruisers with 120+ TLAM/TASM (Tomahawk cruise missiles) and Arleigh Burke Class missile Destroyers capable of carying upto 74 TLAM/TASM and a Seawolf submarine) and other surface assets. 🙂 I know that the George Washington Strike Group, for example, comprises:
* CVN-73 George Washington Nimit’s Class Aircraft Carrier carrying Carrier Air Wing 17 (comprising of mostly F/A-18 Hornet’s & Super Hornet’s)
* Cruiser Destroyer Group 2 (2 Ticonderoga Class AEGIS Cruisers)
* Destroyer Squadron 22 (4 Arleigh Burke Class AEGIS Destroyers, 2 Spruance Class Destroyers, 2 Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates)
* Amphibious Squadron 4 (1 SSN-22 Seawolf Class Submarine, 2 Ticonderoga Class AEGIS Cruisers, 1 Arleigh Burke Class AEGIS Destroyer, 2 Austin Class Amphibious Transport Docks, 2 Whidbey Island Class Dock Landing Ships, 1 WASP Class Multipurpose Amphibious Assault Ship)
* 2 SSN-688 Los Angeles Class Attack Submarines.
* 1 Supply Class Fast Combat Support Ship.
(Whether or not all the above assets sail with the CSG depends upon the mission. Less than half of the full CSG sailed to Sth. Korea recently, for eg.)
That’s one hell of a strike group! 😉 😀
Oops! A correction… We actually have 36 capable F-111C’s. But only 21 currently in active service (1 squadron).
The RAAF knows how to look after and get the best out of their aircraft. 🙂 In 2006, head of Boeing, described the RAAF’s Hornets, as “The best ‘legacy’ Hornets in the world”. 😉 During the ‘Red Flag’ exercise in 2006, our pig’s regularly hit target’s that the UK Tonka’s (Tornado GR4’s) couldn’t. (though, the GR.4 is good at SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) where the pig fails miserably).
One of the biggest problems with the F-111’s is that they really need some upgrades. The comm’s systems are way out-of-date, EW is a joke these days, CDS, standoff sensors, GPS and datalinks etc all need an upgrade (and the engines also). There was a proposal for a JDAM upgrade, but that was canceled (that would have given the pigs an ‘all-weather’ ordinance delivery capability that they don’t have.
Everything is a trade-off. *shrug* 🙂
production is to increase in several countries –
http://www.google.com/search?q=increase+production+of+cocau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Ame, some politicians say that production is to increase, but experience says it won’t unless the farmers can make a living growing it. It takes at least four years for a seedling to mature enough to produce pods, and a mature tree only produces enough pods for about two kilograms of cocoa paste with a value of under $2.
The trees require good soil, shade, and predictable rainfall. There is drought in West Africa and the Amazon, two major production areas, and political instability in the Ivory Coast, far and away the largest producer.
I wouldn’t buy the marshmallows until we actually see production increase. The Chinese have discovered chocolate, and that isn’t good news for the supply.
OT: The one unbending rule of US military aircraft – just as soon as the military figures out how to make an aircraft a reliable workhorse, it will be canceled and the replacement will be late and a total disaster.
The one exception to that rule, Bryan, was the F/A 18 Super Hornet. The Navy sort of slid that one past the procurement bureaucracy that usually bloats up new weapons into unusability by claiming it was just a minor upgrade of the F-18 Hornet. It was actually pretty much a new plane, but one that was conservatively designed according to known best practices to be easily maintained and capable of hauling big payloads for long distances. The result is a reliable workhorse. Which means, of course, that it’s going to be cancelled and replaced by the navalized version of the F-35, which is turning out to be about as probable as the navalized version of the F-111 was :twisted:. (The latest news is that the F-35’s jet engine pod is too big and heavy to transfer to carriers that are underway, it can only be transferred to carriers in port… which is not exactly what you want to have happening when you’re an admiral whose F-35’s have been bombing Iran for the past two weeks and you’re out of spares, your carriers turn into pumpkins at that point!).
– Badtux the Conservative Design Penguin
About the F-35 – they still aren’t flying the simplest version, the vanilla version the AF is getting, over civilian areas, nor are they doing it with the Ospreys. Everything else goes over my house on the way to the ranges, but those two detour out over the Gulf. It’s almost as if someone thinks they will fall out of the sky 😈
I really don’t think the Marine version to replace the Harriers will ever be produced.
All of the capabilities in the world are meaningless if you can’t get the sucker away from its parking spot.
From what I’ve heard, the F-35 will be a bigger disaster and black hole then the V22! And thanks to Howard (the lame duck) the whole process is a complete mess and nobody actually knows what the heck is going on!
First Howard signed the F-35 Production MoU in Nov ’06, and then he suddenly sent a USD $3.1+ billion order without a competition process, or any consultation (when he decided to submit the order), for 24 Super Hornets (Block II)!
Australian Air Power Controversy: F-35 & Super Hornets Under Fire
There are a lot of arguments going on here (and in the US) that we should have ordered the F-22. The problem was, quite simply, that the Pentagon (under Bushmoron) forbade the export of the F-22, even though SecDef William Gates said there was absolutely no reason not to allow the RAAF to purchase them, and lobbied hard for that. Of course, we all know that it had nothing whatsoever to do with security, availability, etc… it was totally a political/back-room decision to ensure we (and others) bought the F-35 and made their friends wealthy (regardless of whether they were any good). Given that the USA entrusted the RAAF with dozens of Nuclear Strike Bombers and weapons systems (FB-111), they have no legitimate reason what so ever to forbid the sale of what is essentially just a fighter. So, in a move to try to appease the solely greed motivated US Congress, the RAAF said they would like to order a mix of F-22’s and F-35’s. This was a very important indicator of the near-desperation the RAAF had to get the F-22! There is no way the RAAF want to have to maintain two brand new and very different advanced aircraft, as well as continuing to maintain the Hornet & Super Hornet! (Though, part of the plan was to retire the Hornet’s). Of course (and as expected by anyone who knows the GOP, they said no to the deal. F-35’s or nothing). I am REALLY hoping that the morons in our Labor party tell teh US to STFU and go for the EuroFighter (hell, or even Mig’s or Su’s!) The Russians would happily sell us some advances Sukhoi’s, and I know for a fact there are elements within the RAAF that think that’s not such a bad idea at all!) So far, the new Sukhoi PAK FA T-50 is outperforming the F-22 & F-35 in almost every way (and at least the thing has actually flown), and is a lot cheaper! I say we should go for it! We have a lot of very good Aeronautic Engineers and Aircraft specialists that could easily go to Sukhoi to help out (it’s a FACT that without us from the mid 60’s through the 90’s working with GD, the F-111 would still be a lame duck! And the same with the F/A-18!
Of course, we would have to make some concessions, like get rid of at least a couple of the *secret* (that everyone knows about) US Bases, but I see that as a plus given that the USA is going fast down the plug-hole (our exports to the USA have dropped to an all time low, so we desperately need a new partner to sell stuff too anyway). Besides, we have lot’s of ore and agri products the Russians would love to get (like copper, iron and high-grade Uranium!) *shrug*That, of course, would prompt the Chinese to scream blue-murder, and if nothing else, will force the Chinese to start behaving with us and give us the best deals in OUR (rather than totally *their*) interests! It’s about f*kin time the Aus Gov started looking after the Australian interests!! We get NOTHING out of our relationship with the USA now and, like we did with the UK, it’s time to tell the USA to POQ!
You want to see what *REAL* competition is like, get the Chinese and Russian negotiators to a table in Canberra! Would be like Christmas for kids every day! LMAO Now that, I’d love to see (especially the regular tantrums from both sides)! 😀
There really are far too many greedy and stupid (willfully so) people in the World.
Edit: In fact, the Sukhoi PAK FA has now complete 40 full flight trials successfully! Not bad at all. 😛 😀 (I wrote the above from memory (and I was annoyed), I should have checked first.) 🙂
Yes, sort of hard to fly missions when the primary spare part you need in order for your jets to leave the deck is a consumable that’s too big to get onto a carrier that’s underway :twisted:.
The main reason for this is that the F-35 is a) a fairly big jet, and b) only has a single engine (as vs. two smaller engines as for previous Navy fighters). Meaning that this single engine has to be *big*. As in, *ELEVEN TONS* big.Well, nobody checked to see whether fleet colliers had cranes capable of lifting the engine cores from their decks to the cargo deck of an underway aircraft carrier, or whether these cores would fit on any Navy transport aircraft capable of landing on an aircraft carrier that’s underway. Ooooops!
The navalized F-35 is proving to be as daft an idea as the navalized F-111 was, albeit for different reasons. A single-engine fighter simply isn’t suitable for Navy use, if you bail on an Air Force jet you’ll be a POW, if you bail on a Navy jet you’re likely shark bait. So having two engines is something Navy pilots really, really want for some reason that I can’t fathom :twisted:. The reality is that today’s fighter jets are weapons trucks whose sole purpose is to get weapons up into the sky where they can take out the enemy with AMRAAM’s or GPS-guided bombs or missiles at distances where the enemy can’t even see you, and the Super Bug is plenty good for that purpose — and much, much cheaper both to acquire and to operate.
Kryten, the traditional black mark against the Russian jets is that they are fuel hogs due to inefficient engines and that their engines and airframes aren’t designed for long life, meaning that if your air force trains hard, you’ll be in the market for new fighters before finished paying off the old ones. Thus far we don’t know how well Sukhoi has addressed those issues, neither the Russian Air Force nor any of Sukhoi’s current customers expend much time and effort on training, unlike Western air forces. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak… and thus far, Sukhoi has made the right noises, but proven low-maintenance high reliability designs like the Super Bug would decidedly be my preference if I were an arms purchaser for a Western nation. But then, I’m rather conservative (in the old sense of the word, not in the “deranged lunatic ideologue” sense of the word that prevails today) and prefer the proven and tested to the unproven / untested…
I have a friend here who has a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering that I worked with at GD. I raised the PAK FA because we actually got into a length discussion about it only a few weeks ago after he returned from a trip to Europe (to look into the EuroFighter and other developments). He met a rep of Sukhoi, and signed an NDA, and they *chatted*. 😆
Of the things he could tell me were:
The *official* specifications, especially performance related, are underrated (of course!) This includes the weapons load out, which is stated to be 7500 kg max.
The PAK FA is being jointly developed with India and India have placed an advance order for 200 of them.
The new engines are amazing, light, very powerful and have a SuperCruise (high efficiency) mode. They also have full independent (each of 2 engines) 3D thrust vectoring! (The thing can literally corkscrew). Originally, (before the JV with India) it was planned to use a varient of the Saturn 117S engines, which are known fuel hogs. One of the reasons that the PAK FA was delayed 2 years was because a completely new engine was developed.
About 3/4 of the surface of the PAK FA are made from low RCS/low observability composites. They are also used internally to reduce weight and are reported to be very strong. The airframe is mostly composed of titanium alloy. So, he said, that for it’s size, the aircraft will be relatively light but strong, and be able to carry a significant weapons payload.
Efficiency (low drag coefficient) has been achieved and the design includes 4 internal weapons bay’s, two primary, 2 auxiliary. The intention is that the two primary bays can carry either various long range missiles, or bombs. The secondary bay’s will carry short range AA missiles. If needed, the airframe has 6 external hardpoints for additional weapons or various pods or a mix. New missile systems have been developed, including a new long range (450km+) Anti AWACS hunter/killer. The main bay’s can each carry 2 Izdeliye 810 extended range missiles, or several Izdeliye 180 (K77M) extended range missiles, sor several K30 or K74 short range missiles, or 2 KH38M or KH58 USHK AGM’s per bay, or up to 10 500 kg precision guided bombs in the two main bays, or 2 1500 kg thermonuclear bombs (1 per bay). The smaller secondary bay’s can carry several new small AAMS (he said they are being kept very secret, primarily because of the aircraft’s new detection/control/communications capabilities).
He said one amazing new feature is that the FA is designed to operate solo, or in a pack. He gave me an example where 6 (or more, but 6 for this example) FA’s can be linked electronically via a new high-speed, encrypted digital pulse comm’s system connecting each FA’s mission computer system (developed in India). The system has what Sukhoi terms “artificial intellect”. Essentially, each mission computer becomes one component of a larger system (he said it’s like a hive-mind). All information from individual FA’s sensors (and they have many) are collated and attack/defense options (based upon mission profiles) are presented to the pilot. The system is said to be very fast and can be dynamically updated in real-time. The F-22 has a similar capability BTW, but the FA (according to my friend) is in fact superior. One problem (he said) is that whilst the US claims the F-22 system is capable to about 100nm, it’s actually only really effective to about 40nm. Also, the FA has been designed to evade the new AIM-120D’s the F-22 will carry. 😉 The new FA IRST system can operate at greater range and accuracy than the US believes. It can detect the launch of air/land missiles from *some* distance. My friend also said that this is not just theoretical either. 😉
The sensor suite will include new X-Band AESA radars for front/sides/top-bottom, and new L-band radars that have already proven to be very effective against VLO (stealth) aircraft, a new IRST (IR/optical) search and track system, and a full suite of environmental sensors, as well as a new (secret) rear defense system. in the cockpit, they system will have 2 very large MFD’s and a full screen and/or helmet HUD with eye tracking.
anyway, you can read my friend’s (VERY redacted) summary report here:
PAK-FA analysis and high level advice point to JSF crisis
Oh! BTW… I should point out that the US’s *greatest (ond probably only) ally* Israel, is in fact developing and manufacturing some of the new advanced avionics for the PAK FA. 😉 Nice to have friends you can rely on, no? 😈
From the above linked report:
Note that this is intended to be solely somewhat of a (vague to be sure) validation of what my friend told me (about Israel’s actual involvement). Israel apparently wants the PAK FA badly. 🙂
People who should know (and many who don’t) seem to have forgotten that the whole idea of *stealth* was developed by the Soviets, primarily by Pyotr Ya. Ufimtsev. Among his fundamental contributions were the the Physical Theory of Diffraction (PTD), and the discovery of new physical phenomena related to surface waves in absorbing layers. PTD is used worldwide in the design of microwave antennas and in calculations of radar cross-section of scattering objects. In particular, this theory was used in the design of American stealth aircraft nearly invisible to radar. The Russians have continued work in secret and have finally the ability (thanks to the JV with India & Israel) to produce a platform to make excellent use of this. It also gives them a rather complete understanding of the stealth capabilities of the F-22 & the JSF. 🙂
I should also note that France is also involved in developing the communications systems, especially for the export version (which will require a multi-National comm’s system). I am sure France ha not forgotten (or forgiven) the USA for the debacle in ’91 when the US *accidentally* shut down french-owned, US built radar/comm’s systems via an undisclosed back-door. 😉 Yes… The USA is making friends everywhere! 😈
BTW, the Indian partner company is the State owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL). They have built (under license) several Russian and European fighters (eg: MiG 21 & 27, Su30), and have also contracted to build two Rolls Royce jet engines (Turbomeca Adour Mk 811 & the new 871), and also components for several US companies, such as Garrett, Boeing etc. They have also begun designing India’s own new Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). A 5th Gen multi-role aircraft that will be designed to compliment the PAK FA.
Yes, yes, it all looks good on paper. But as I said, we’ll know more once the aircraft are deployed under actual field conditions with a modern air force (one that actually trains, unlike the current Sukhoi customers, who spend very little time in the seat) and the maintenance issues come to the fore — or don’t, depending.
The Soviets always had very smart people, and many are working for Sukhoi now. The biggest issue they have always had is that the ramshackle Soviet, then Russian, economy has never been able to support them in a way such that they could do things right. That is still true — Sukhoi is being supported by export sales. What that means is that you pay a premium for Sukhoi fighters, whereas the U.S. is subsidizing the sale of U.S. fighters. One interesting thing I’ve heard is that the U.S. won’t allow access to the source code for the fly-by-wire avionics to even the closest U.S. allies, not even to their lapdog, the United Kingdom. Makes one wonder about deadman switches in the avionics that kill the fighter upon reception of a certain encrypted signal, there to avoid a repetition of the Iran F-14 fiasco :twisted:. Arming possible future adversaries with U.S. weapons that have built-in deadman switches? Hmm… no, I’m probably ascribing competence to the Pentagon that is unwarranted :).
The Israeli connection has been active for quite some time, BTW. It started shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as part of the collaboration wherein India got upgraded Su-27’s (renamed “Su-30”) with Israeli avionics. I understand that Israel also sold the design for their Lavi fighter (the one that the U.S. bribed them into not building by giving them F-16’s basically for free) to the Chinese, which the Chinese are now heralding as their first world-class domestically designed fighter jet (SNORT! It’s a Lavi with Sukhoi engines!). Yes, quite an ally Israel is, eh? 😈
As far as the thrust vectoring goes, Sukhoi has been experimenting with that for some time now. The main issue has been reliability and service life, they offered it to India but even India turned it down after testing it and experiencing those issues. As I said, if I were an arms purchaser I would be very dubious, Su-27 derivatives simply haven’t been tested in modern air forces the way that Western fighters have, and the Russians demand a premium for them. Of course, the same is true of the F-35 too :).
LOL I suspect the the PAK FA project is going to do a lot better than the F-35 (and possibly the F-22) 😉
The engine problems were because Saturn were trying to modify existing designs. Russia did the deal with the Indian HAL company, and they worked with Saturn to design a new engine based on both their experience. (HAL manufactures engines for several companies under license, including a multi-billion $ JV with Boeing and Honeywell (Garrett AirResearch). It’s one of the reasons the PAK FA project was delayed almost 3 years, waiting for the new engine that has been successfully trialed this year. Also, Vietnam has expressed an interest in the project (in 2006), which is why the RAAF is getting a bit worried. It wouldn’t surprise me if Iran was on the list also. They gave Russia a couple F-14’s and an F/A-18 (and other US tech) to play with after all (which they have passed on to HAL & China). 🙂
I find it very amusing that major US MIC corporations are outsourcing to companies who are also working directly with Russia. There are very good reasons Sukhoi/HAL are very confident that the aircraft can deal effectively with the new AIM-120D for the F-22.
But that’s just me (well, not really, senior members of the RAAF and other air forces think so also) 😉
If it were just the Russian’s, I’d be skeptical (for several reasons). But several Nations now have a vested interest in the project, and not only the ones I’ve mentioned. The PAK FA project is fully funded. 🙂 And there is another joint Russian/Ukraine/Indian/China project to develop a new Aircraft Carrier for the T-50 aircraft and it’s STOL capability. Russia has just finished building a new full-fledged training complex for training deck aircraft pilots. They are not messing about. 🙂 Russia is planning to have two complete carrier battle groups within 20 years. Each with 3 Carriers each capable of carrying at least 30 T-50’s with the ability to launch/recover 4 at a time, and a compliment of Helicopters. The Carriers will be smaller than Nimitz class, but faster and more automated, requiring a smaller crew compliment. They have also started to refurbish their land based Naval facilities, including ship building. Russia is getting a lot of money from somewhere.
Again, if it was just Russia… I’d just smile and say “Yeah… Heard it all before *yawn*”, but… it isn’t. 🙂 Many very serious analysts are not at all skeptical, including a couple within the USA. Of course, nobody listens to them these days. 😉
A lot of countries REALLY do not like the USA right now, and their overbearing “our way or the highway” juvenile attitude towards others. 🙂 Some people in the USA really have no idea how many Nations would really love to stick it to the USA and teach the USA a hard lesson in Economic/Military reality!
The USA has achieved something no other Nation could… Russia and China are working together on a major project. Sure, they still don’t actually *like* or even really trust each other, but they (and others) have decided that the USA is a common problem. 🙂
In 5 or 6 years, well see what happens. One way or the other. Interesting times… indeed! 🙂
Hmmm. Just to clarify the comments about the new Russian Carriers…
Unlike US Carriers that are essentially a sea-going flight deck with hangers, the Russians are essentially building Cruiser Carriers. Think of a Ticonderoga Cruiser with a flight deck and aircraft storage (hence the reason for smaller compliment of aircraft). Russia received a massive cash injection in 2008 to restart the Carrier project put on hold since the 90’s (probably from China & India). From GlobalSecurity:
Apparently, this year the Ukraine decided to work with Russia on the Carrier fleet building program. I’m sure part of the deal will be that they will no longer actively seek to join the EU, or be part of NATO. 🙂
ROFL. It’ll take the world at least 20 years of *serious* investment in weaponry to get the sort of force projection capabilities needed to counter U.S. imperial overreach, and I have seen no indication that the rest of the world has the stomach for that. In particular, without serious force projection capabilities including *real* carrier groups (not oversized battle cruisers, the Brits found out the limits of that approach, which is why they’re replacing their cruiser-based carriers with real ones) capable of carrying the battle to the “safe havens” to which U.S. forces can retreat to regroup and resupply, local victories can be obtained (such as those attained by the NVA and other Communist groups in Indochina in 1975) but a destruction of U.S. imperial power isn’t possible. Just as guerilla movements are impossible to destroy as long as they have safe havens into which they can retreat to regroup and resupply, so are empires.
Regarding the F-35 vs the PAK FA, you have a point that the PAK FA is at least based on the very good Su-27 airframe, rather than being an all-new construction. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the Su-27 airframe, and re-skinning it with radar-absorbing composites and upgrading the avionics and engines is unlikely to ruin the basic goodness of the airframe. So you have a point that if it’s a contest between buying the PAK FA vs. buying the F-35, any sensible arms purchaser would be looking very closely at the PAK FA. On the other hand, the Brits are on the verge of pulling out of the F-35 program and instead buying Super Hornets for their new carriers, which would allow them to buy sufficient fighters to outfit both carriers. The Super Bug is a mediocre fighter from the viewpoint of dogfighting and overall performance, but has a decent range and is durable and cheap and easy to maintain and has good avionics and weapons systems. And let’s face it, for pretty much any opponent that any Western power is going to go against over the next 20 years, the Super Bug is plenty good. It’s not as if the Taliban Air Force actually exists, after all… and as long as the typical pilot in these 3rd world nations has less than 30 hours a year of actual seat time, the likelihood of them being a real threat even if world-class hardware gets plunked into their laps is, err, nil. And of course there are any number of other nations also interested in selling you fighters, the French, for example, would be overjoyed (merci beaucoup!) if you bought fighters from them…
LOL Yeah… The 20 year thing was obviously the typical *political wish list* type think. 😉 My friend said that whilst they have proof that the Russians are very serious about the shipbuilding & carrier plans, it’s more likely to be 30 or so years. Still (as he said to me) they were surprised to see 40 trials of the T-50 with a brand new engine happen without a hitch this year. The Russians surprised everyone with their new timeline announcement in Nov/Dec 2009, and people were even more surprised that they did indeed meet their targets. Apparently, their estimations were 2011 as the earliest, probably 2012. Now, the Russians have announced full avionics packages & weapons trials starting 2011, and in fact have promised to show a fully operational T-50 at the 2011 MAKS Airshow.
I guess, *where there’s a will, and lot’s of money, there’s always a way*! 😀
I agree that the Super Hornet is a good aircraft, and the RAAF should be buying those over the F-35. Hell, the RAAF wants to buy more Super Hornet’s! But the US Gov is applying a lot of pressure to everyone to but the crappy F-35’s! If the USA Congress were not such a bunch of myopic self-interested crooks, they really should scrap the JSF and focus on enhancement & upgrade programs for the Super Hornets! But, they are what they are. *shrug*
The way the USA is going, they will end up where the USSR ended up in the 90’s within 10-20 years! And personally, I think that’s the plan. 😉 I (and others) suspect that a group of countries, including Russia, are planning a Ronny Raygun *Star War’s* type smoke and mirrors deal. And since the USA just loves knee-jerk reactions new, are crippling their revenue streams, have crippled their Intel services, and pissed off most of their friends… It just may work. 😉 I think the whole PAK FA and Carrier programs (which are VERY real programs) are part of the first salvo in a multi-national *yank the USA’s chain* exercise. 🙂 All that money is coming from somewhere! Russia should have run out of money by 2009 (at the latest) on the PAK FA program.
For me, the really interesting part of the Carrier building announcement, was the plan to build about 30 new oil wells, and some super tankers! Either, that was just to annoy fools in Washington, and their master’s, or it’s part of the payback deal for the money for China/Israel/India (and quite possibly, both). 🙂
No matter what anyone may laughingly think of Russia right now, they are making friends, and they have been getting a ton of money since 2008, and they are smart and pissed! 😉 Not a good combination for the USA IMHO. 🙂