The Turkey problem

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

marsavian

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Oct 2018, 05:37

I suspect the Turks will still produce the parts even after being denied the F-35 just for economic reasons. The transition away from Turkish involvement may in the end be quite smooth because after all they are still technically a NATO ally even if they want to be more independent and free thinking in their actions.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1678
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Oct 2018, 17:53

When I worked in the launch vehicle biz, we were always cognizant of single-points-of-failure and did our best to avoid them if at all possible. One of the reasons for the creation of United Launch Alliance was to avoid a single-point-of-failure in the US Government launch capability -- if Delta IV had an uh-oh, Atlas V could still launch payloads whilst an investigation discovered and corrected whatever went wrong on the other vehicle.

I would like to think the LM executives, being smart folks (generally) and being paid to think about these sorts of things, have some contingency plans figured out for replacing any single supplier for all the bits on F-35 if something goes hiccup. IMO, 18-24 interruption in production if the Turks have to be cut out is unacceptable, especially since this problem has been percolating -- in public -- for the past 12+ months. To me, if that is the case, some executive(s) have not been doing their job. But what do I know... I just crunched numbers.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

marsavian

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post11 Oct 2018, 21:46

Pastor being freed for economic relief.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... -us-pastor
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1038
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77006

Unread post12 Oct 2018, 00:10

steve2267 wrote:When I worked in the launch vehicle biz, we were always cognizant of single-points-of-failure and did our best to avoid them if at all possible. One of the reasons for the creation of United Launch Alliance was to avoid a single-point-of-failure in the US Government launch capability -- if Delta IV had an uh-oh, Atlas V could still launch payloads whilst an investigation discovered and corrected whatever went wrong on the other vehicle.

I would like to think the LM executives, being smart folks (generally) and being paid to think about these sorts of things, have some contingency plans figured out for replacing any single supplier for all the bits on F-35 if something goes hiccup. IMO, 18-24 interruption in production if the Turks have to be cut out is unacceptable, especially since this problem has been percolating -- in public -- for the past 12+ months. To me, if that is the case, some executive(s) have not been doing their job. But what do I know... I just crunched numbers.


Normal monetary thinking does not apply to would be dictators, as the Turkish economy and currency is a living proof of these days. They may just as well stopp delivering parts to blackmail the rest of us.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests