A380 Break-Even Point Likely To Slip Further to 2020

reply to post by Harlequin

---

Here ya go sport:

www.google.com...


Be assured, the components in question cross over so you decide what merit there is, kkthx.


[edit on 10-6-2009 by Seekerof]

Please. One of the functions of government is basic research and development functions.

Take say Galileo which as it stands is exactly the same thing you are accusing Boeing of getting but who is it benifiting? Yep ESA and ding ding ding:

European Satellite Navigation Industries is that anything like Europrop?

Sorry.... WHAT?


Your comparing the US govt forking out for a demonstrator composite empennage to the EU/China/Israel/South Korea/Morocco/Ukraine forking out for a commerical GPS system?


I suppose that means the evil Chinese are funding Airbus now too?




If you want to point fingers at why Galileo was deemed necessary, point at the high esteem the previous US administration were held in, particularly with regards trust. The US has a power switch on GPS as far as the rest of the world are concerned (GLONASS excepted), and the rest of the world don't like that.

reply to post by Seekerof

---

you could be right - since the ones in use are made by BF Goodrich - get rid of that american `crap`

Fred, any answer to my question yet? Since you are back on the eurobash I thought you might like to show me.

edit; once is enough, I don't want you to think I'm nagging.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by waynos]

reply to post by kilcoo316

---

Yawn sorry I was thinking about toast......You can keep saying it but it does not change the fact that:

Once again you skirt the issue. is but one example of a GOVERNMENT spending R&D dollars that will over time benifit a private sector industry.

Its funny, its okay in the EU but not in the US? Hello pot its the kettle........ your black! and of course

And why do you keep bringing up Bush and US deployments? Last I looked it was hardly germain to the topic eh?



[edit on 6/12/09 by FredT]

Waynos, if you want to nag at me that much your going to have to put a ring on my finger

Sorry, your post got lost in all of this nationalistic chest thumping that we have been doing in this thread.

That the loans have been paid back is irrelevant to me. I will take you word on the fact that investor governments got back thier investment plus interest. However, I have never seen any datat that shows repayment begins with airframe #1 of any of thier projects and nor have I heard this with the A380. Can you point me a link so i can see the data for myself. (I looked and cannot find anything)

Also, even if true, its still a tremendous compedative advantage that smacks of protectionism.

Also please show me where the US treasury simply hands Boeing or any other US Defence contractor $$$$$. As I am trying to impress on my fiend here in thread that one primary function of government is to fund R&D projects and yes that stuff trickles down to the private sector as it has in any country.

One example?

The whole thing is around R&D dollars!

Boeing get a sh*t-load more R&D monies through NASA than Airbus get through the DLR or ONERA.




OK, go google the following (and these are just off the top of my head)

Some of NASA's fundamental R&D programs which deeply involve US aerospace companies (i.e. that is direct knowledge they can use in any subsequent decisions they make):

Separate Flow Nozzle Tests (SFNT)
Quiet Turbofan Demonstrator (QTD)
QTD2
Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADP)
Energy Efficient Engine (EEE)
Advanced Composite Technology (ACT)

Now. All that is long term research, been there, done that.

Boeing have been funded for, say, the C-17 composite tail refit, or the V-22 Osprey wings.

So there are grants for both the fundamental research and the process of converting R&D technologies to a position where they can be manufactured for commerical aircraft.




European equivalents of fundamental research are:

Environmentally Friendly Engine (EFE)
Silent Engine Core Research [or something like that] SILENCE(R)
GLARE developed at TU Delft under EU grants

Trust me, from experience, these programs are much smaller than the ones NASA does a great job of running.

While European equivalents of the C-17 or V-22 would be the A400M or the A350 (with inherent technology demonstrator programs).


Here is a document I stumbled across 5 mins ago:
***PDF***

reply to post by kilcoo316

---

As does Lockmart, NG etc. How much does the US spend on R&D versus the EU? Is it even close? You will also note that BAE gets research and development $$$ from the US government too.

Again spending R&D dollars for basic and not so basic research is a function of government period. The fact that the EU perhaps spends less should not force the US to meet the $ for $

So again as I have said so many times. Government spend money to promote R&D. Some more, some less. Its a simple fact. You dont thing the Ariane space system relied on no R&D spending from the various government did it? Same with the Galileo Space System. Or how about the composite wing for the A400? Im sure that research will go towards the future narrowbody Airbus is producing?

What you keep saying is that its okay for the EU to do it but the US somehow is bad based on the actions fo the Bush administration

Now launch aid? Loans, outright gifts (Take Hamburg for example) that a whole different kettle of wax.

[edit on 6/13/09 by FredT]

£28m investment at Airbus factory
news.bbc.co.uk...

"Its a grant" *cough* Spin away Right right Im sure its all easily explained