Comments on: Peninsula Trainer War

By: dokdoforever

dokdoforever — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:47:20 +0000

Wangkon, your quote describe the UAE using the trainer in actual missions during wartime. What is the difference exactly, between a multi-purpose combat trainer and an actual combat aircraft? How much more difficult is it to manufacture a trainer than a fighter jet?

By: snow

snow — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:08:30 +0000

The only ones who will care will be the party that loses the deal. But buying a competitive edge is a short-term solution that will lead to long-term failure because those companies that are unable to innovate and compete without paying bribes will not be able to compete with those that are able to succeed without such greasing.

By: WangKon936

WangKon936 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:56:31 +0000

Who cares the greasiness of the lubricant as long as it allows the deed to slip through the cracks?

By: snow

snow — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:28:53 +0000

It has long been rumored (as described in the Economist) that Airbus secured some of its Middle East deals in the past using ‘bonuses’. Something that Boeing and other American firms are unable to do (or must be very careful in doing) for fear of prosecution back home. I don’t think there are any such constraints in place holding back (French) Italian or Korean firms.

By: snow

snow — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:23:19 +0000

Could it come down to whoever offers more, uh, ‘perks’ to the deal?

By: WangKon936

WangKon936 — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:54:10 +0000

Per Flight Daily News:

“Some believe that it is this resurgence in Iranian air power that lies behind the UAE’s recent elimination of the BAE Hawk from the nation’s ongoing trainer competition. While the Hawk is an excellent advanced trainer, there may be some pressure for any trainer acquired by the UAE to be fully capable of operational missions, should it ever be necessary to get the maximum number of aircraft into the air at once. Elimination of the Hawk leaves the Alenia M-346 and the T-50 in the competition, both of which are claimed to offer better frontline capabilities.”

Thus, if the T-50 can quickly become an F/A-50 for the UAE, it may actually be a plus. It sounds like this is Korea’s to loose if the fumble it.

By: pawikirogi

pawikirogi — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:50:25 +0000

as someone who can remember yontan, i’m jst amazed that korea would even be involved in such a subject matter of which, btw, i have no understanding.

By: mins0306

mins0306 — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:00:22 +0000

Not so fast. With STX’s purchase of Aker Yards, Korea will be competiting, albeit indirectly, with Fincantieri of Italy in cruise ships.

By: WangKon936

WangKon936 — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:11:31 +0000

On a lighter note, can’t these two prickly peninsular people just stop trading barbs and get along?

Italian and Korean hot headedness doesn’t appear to be mix well. Good thing we don’t compete in other products such as cell phones, TVs or ships.

By: WangKon936

WangKon936 — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:01:13 +0000

They’re throwing FUD at each other.

UAE AF’s primary combat aircraft is the Mirage 2000 and F-16, with F-16 block 60 as the newest. The T-50, due to its origins, would make a more familiar trainer aircraft for F-16’s thus Korea has the upper hand here.

The Italian offering is good as a multi-purpose combat trainer, but it’s
not in any way better than the T-50, unless if they can offer it at a much
lower price, in which case UAE should bypass the Italians and go directly to Yakalov for Yak-130 (for which the M-346 was based off of).

According to this article:
http://www.defensenews.com/sto.....p;C=top100

The unit price for T-50 to UAE is $25 million USD. The M-346 was quoted at $15 million USD in 2001. Due to rising value of Euros vs. USD, I think the unit cost should be a lot higher in dollars now, which gives the M-346 only a slight, but hardly decisive, price advantage.