magwitch

Generate content for Russia Today. See also the Kuznetsov "deployment".

Roy Cross art from the Airfix 'Type 4B' box era (1972-1975). Just fantastic...

I have no technical advice to offer but want to say how much I am enjoying this tale of challenges encountered and overcome.

A Spanish one crashed yesterday. http://www.defenseworld.net/news/20946/Spanish_Eurofighter_Crashes_Following_Military_Parade#.WeA7HjARVaQ Imagine the Internet if 3 F-35s went down in one month!

The 'con' argument in that article wasn't very compelling...

About 30, with maybe 12 (or 11!) available for ops. http://warisboring.com/the-su-22-is-syrias-war-weary-warhorse/

The Qatari deal is for the "Advanced Eagle" variant that the Saudis bought as the F-15SA in their 2011 deal. AN/APG(V)-63 AESA Radar, JHMCS and 110-129 engines. Not many jobs you can't do with that...

The true mission of this aircraft was to strangle at birth the Army's CASTOR project. With the transfer of the AAC Islanders to the RAF the Army is finally out of the fixed wing aviation business so the Sentinel is ripe for an uncontested retirement from the RAF. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

No, the E-6 Mercury has had the USAF system since 1989. Also, F-16N now I think about it.

I don't think they do have the "form". What was the last 100% German combat aircraft? The He-162?

There is nobody to put in the back seat. The RAF hasn't graduated an ab initio WSO since 2013.

And the Hornet (although it was then called the Cobra) started life as a land based fighter; the YF-17 which lost the USAF LWF competition to the F-16.

There aren't going to be any squadron markings are there? I though Typhoons were all going to be pooled in wings and no squadrons will no longer have dedicated airframes. ie the squadron is just an administrative unit. There aren't going to be any squadron markings are there? I though Typhoons were all going to be pooled in wings and no squadrons will no longer have dedicated airframes. ie the squadron is just an administrative unit.

The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund is used to pay goverment pensions. The UK government used its oil revenue to pay for, among other things, government pensions so there isn't a great deal of difference. The Norwegians used it to smooth out volatility in the income stream from oil but the UK doesn't need to as it has a much more diversified economy and a greater ability to borrow via gilts.

SYD-LAX is about 15 hours and a QF A380 is configured 406Y, 64J and 14F so there is obviously a very low limit to the number of customers that will pay a significant premium for more comfort even on such a long flight. So I think the number of customers who'd pay an even bigger premium to get there in 7 hours is even lower. SST just can't happen until there are breakthroughs in engine and airframe technology that will get the CASM down into the $0.06 - $0.07 range of the B777/A350. SST + ULH is an interesting concept that would be revolutionary if could connect previously unconnectable city pairs like LHR-PER or NRT-GRU with reasonable flight durations. That would be revolutionary. Finally, Branson's involved in this particular iteration so it will probably never happen anyway.

They started off with 80%+ commonality on avionics and software but Canada will probably get Block III SH with AESA radar so precious little of the Legacy Hornet remains in the brew. 18 a/c doesn't seem like much of a fleet. Type conversion will probably have to be done by the USN FRS.

"Pretty new to carrier operations"? The Kuznetsov has been in service for 25 years!

But what is the marginal effect of the 10m/pound a year RA project on this ambiguously defined mission? Almost zero, would be my guess. It's also going to be a hell of a lot more than 10m/year if new airframes have to be capitalised. The T1s were paid for long ago, but new T2s off the showroom floor go for 16m a copy.

What are they for then? I am baffled as to what return the UK gets for the 10m+/year it spends on them. There also over 100 full time service personnel assigned to them which seems ridiculous.

Raytheon/Leonardo have the best simulator technology (LVC) with the T-100 "system" so you'd think that would make them the frontrunners. I think you can discount any proposal based on a brand new airframe as bringing too much risk.

I think the point is that at least 50% of the posts occupied by the 26 Admirals don't necessarily have to be performed by an individual of OF-7 rank or greater.

LOL. I never thought of that. Jacksonville: Lossiemouth:

The last C-17 customers (India, Qatar, UAE) paid about $190m/airframe. A400s have a sticker price of about $200m if you let the European tax payers eat the 20bn EUR development costs. It's hard to see where the A400 could fit into the USAF acquisition plans. The C-130 replacement (Joint Theatre Lift) will almost certainly be a tilt-rotor and the C-17/C-5 replacement (Joint Heavy Lift) will be a jet. Neither of those programs will start in earnest until the mid 2020s. Given the nameplate capacity of the A400 line is 2.1 aircraft per month the A400 will be out of production by mid 2022 unless it gets more orders.

There are still 6 F/A-18C squadrons in carrier air wings and one F/A-18A squadron in the UNSR. Plus the USMC legacy Hornets...

The Shackleton was based on the Tudor fuselage. Is the Atlantique the only pureblood MPA/MMA?