XV107

Forgive brief diversion, but it's astonishing to think that he passed away nearly 10 years ago. His tongue-in-cheek 'Bondo Industries Difficult Kit Division' (or something like that) always raised a mixture of a smile and admiration as he set about making Mach 2's finest products seem to go together as though they'd been produced by Tamiya. Sorry, back to the C-133. What have they done to the RAF roundels for the Thor?

Possibly - here's a CAD image to be going on with... [Auto-complete: an internet user's worst enema...(sic)]

I wonder if Hannants have had their first email complaining that someone's kit is missing the cat yet?

I think it was at an RAF History Society event that someone observed that the Sea Eagle was a minor modification of the Martel. One of the individuals involved in the P3T/Sea Eagle politely and gently put him straight....

If the KC-45 had gone forward, it'd have been put together in a new factory which was to be built in Mobile, AL. Airbus did, subsequently, build the factory and it builds/assembles A320s. One of the Alabama senators is on the Armed Services Committee, which may give EADS a bit of extra 'oomph' on that side of things, particularly given all that's gone wrong with the KC-46. I've no doubt that if EADS decided to bid, the rather chequered history of the KC-46 and a comparison with the RAF/RAAF experience with Voyager/KC330 will probably make an appearance in the debate over which to procure; there is some pretty bi-partisan criticism of the complete horlicks that KC-46 has been to date. The original Boeing/Airbus spat was over the KC-X programme; this is the KC-Y programme, the 'Bridge Tanker' which will come into service when the KC-46's deliveries are scheduled to be completed in 2029, although full rate production of the '46 has been pushed back to 2024 (7 years late). If - as could well happen - there are still issues with the KC-46 as the decision on KC-y is taken, it may be that the political pressure to adopt a different airframe will be almost insurmountable. On the flip side, Boeing has lost a lot of money on KC-46, and KC-Y might offer the opportunity to recoup some of that if they win - I don't think they'll be shying away from a bid, somehow.

Without breaking the site rules on politics, 'MoD' would be better replaced with 'Treasury', and they always get what they want one way or another (unless it involves chopping the Red Arrows, which gets PM-level intervention to stop it)... It's often a case of 'well, you've made your case, which we are now going to ignore. You have two options - one of which is deeply unpalatable and the other quite unacceptable, but they both save money. Choose which sort of kick in the pants you want and let us know, yes?'

I'd not say that I've noticed in the last 20 years of working with them, but... I'm pretty sure that the senior RAF officer in the film is Neil Cameron. He was the son of a CSM in the Seaforth Highlanders, but as his Dad died when he was less than three weeks old, he was brought up by his mum and grandparents, and left school aged 16/17 to work as a bank clerk. The war sent him on a rather stratospheric career (he wasn't a Cranwell graduate, but began as an RAFVR Sgt pilot, commissioning in 1941). He ended up as CDS and - in retirement - Principal of King's College London. I suspect anyone who met him when he was Lord Cameron of Balhousie might have assumed from the clipped tones and the peerage that he must have been from a well-heeled background, but the reality was a bit different. Lt Col Howlett (later General) on the other hand, was educated at Wellington College before going to Sandhurst and commissioning into the family regiment before transferring (as officers did in those days) to the Paras. The boss of 16 Brigade at the time was David O'Morchoe, or, to be exact, Brigadier David Nial Creagh, The O'Morchoe, hereditary Chief and Prince of the Ó Murchadha - descended from the Kings of Leinster (I think it is).... Yet you'd never tell that Neil Cameron had a slightly different background to the two senior army officers in the film...

Although when it comes to the USN, there are Vietnam war era shots of F-4Js on USS Constellation carrying both AIM-9 and Mk 82s (on a TER) on the inner pylon and, of course, this famous one (9D/G, centreline tank, no outboard pylons, ergo…) (Credit USN, even if some charlatans attempt to claim to own the copyright to them)

Reports suggest that the pilot was killed and a second person was very seriously injured and had to be airlifted to hospital.

<answers own question> Like this? I'd say it looks like a baggage pod

Do you have a photo? I always thought this was an interesting T12 photo... https://www.airfighters.com/photo/262/M/UK-Air-Force/British-Aerospace-Harrier-T12/ZH657/

Chris Roy's sign got him a bit of an ear-wigging; there were concerns that a pilot might do something mildly embarrassing regarding the retirement, and Gary Waterfall had effectively promised that there'd be no humour which could be twisted by the media as part of the deal to allow coverage of the final launch. He wasn't incandescent about it, but could've done without the humour.... Chris Roy did fly Harriers again - he went off to France as a liaison officer, then on exchange to VMAT-203 about 18 months after the end of the Harrier in UK service

They'll be new build. The oldest airframes will be retired (so BN to Cosford or Hendon is a distinct possibility). The only downside is that the bill for the pandemic means that we're unlikely to see the last of the new airframes before 2031. The general thinking is that these will be to MH-47G standard or similar ('or similar' does not mean attempting to redo the HC3 fiasco!)

FWIW, have had a couple of these appear in the last few days - always sorted by a simple refresh of the page, though.

The 'F-15EX This Will Screw Up the Social Media Analytics for LM's Launch of the Danish F-35 As People Tune in to This Instead as They Wonder What On Earth We're Going to Rename the Eagle' might have been just a bit too obvious...

Jokes about NATO needing to invite the Poles to pause at the gates of Moscow should WW3 kick off while obviously flippant, are underpinned by a clear recognition of what the Poles think about the Russians (hence the old joke that a Polish general, asked which front would be the main effort should Germany and Russia attack simultaneously, said 'The German front, obviously: business before pleasure'. The joke is also told with the Russians being the first to be dealt with, which perhaps tells us something... )

Now the Centre for Aviation Medicine, stationed at Henlow; uses Hawk T1 nowadays, although a new type will be required as the T1 goes out of service, of course.

Because they're identified as part of the 'persistent engagement' (previously 'defence diplomacy' and 'defence engagement') part of the government's strategy. This suggests more overseas tours and flying around with the Chiefs of the Air Staff of various nations we want to sell kit to. In truth, they've been seen by certain elements of government in this way for years - which has helped their survival in addition to governments not wanting to get berated by the press for binning them. The RAF did, at one stage, moot the idea of putting them up as a cost saving, but were told (I paraphrase) 'the Red Arrows will never be taken as a cut, so it'd just be a waste of time writing the document justifying their disbandment'. Because if working with the Americans, you don't get on the first night of the Air Tasking Order (ATO) if you're up against a decently-equipped opponent if you don't have 'stealth' and you lose influence. If not working with the Americans, you are at least as well equipped as your partner nations, if not better equipped, thus giving you more influence in the coalition. That's the rationale behind it, at least, and there's circumstantial evidence to suggest that if you want an invitation to the first night of the war, you need to have something the Joint Force Air Component Commander is willing to have on the ATO. Storm Shadow has slightly changed that equation, but not completely. Also, although the precise amount of UK content in an F-35 is not as clear-cut as used to be thought, UK industry gains nothing from buying F/A-18 or F-16.

Puma is to be replaced by a new medium lift helicopter, although whether this will be in the form of one of those infamous 'capability holidays' for a few years isn't obvious. The 9 retired Chinooks - which may mean Bravo November finds a parking spot at Hendon or Cosford - will be replaced by new-buy Chinooks. The Hawk T1s go - but I note that the Red Arrows are listed as part of the Future Force under the 'Persistent Engagement' (or 'defence diplomacy' as it were called when I were a lad...) element of the Command Paper, and this might hint at a decision on a new aircraft a bit sooner than we might have thought (at a guess, there'll be some hints that the Hawk T2s will be replaced from 2033 and would anyone like to sell us circa 60 training aircraft with UK assembly as part of the deal). Also, the Typhoon fleet reduction is - apparently - not going to see the loss of any of the 7 front line squadrons - which could, if 29 is considered in purely OCU terms - mean that the sustainment fleet is being reduced in size and aircraft pushed out onto the forward fleet. If 9 Squadron is considered to have a training role only, though, this could see the loss of a squadron. It's a slightly odd paper in that while there's a clear issue for concern - the reduction of air mobility - there are hints of jam tomorrow throughout it (MLH, possible Reds replacement, more than 48 F-35 [49? 50? 61?], plus new Chinook and £2bn for Tempest).

It's an absolutely perfect rendition of the little-known RAF Sabre FGA5, I think you'll find; as an FJ-2/-3? Not so much...

I should like to complain vigorously on behalf of my bank account about this choice of subject...

It's a fleet of 28 airframes - 600,000 hours over just under 15 years.

Don't know about the specific airframe, but the target-towing Meteors could be aluminium/silver or Light Aircraft Grey. One of Xtradecals' sets for the F8 had a Singapore-based TT example, and that was in LAG (with a black/night fin and the yellow/black undersides).

I'm guessing the 'p-word' is associated with pigs and barrels, plus the penchant for the USAF/USN/USMC/Army Avn to get more airframes, etc, than expected because a Congressional delegation has decided that the service(s) requirement for the aeroplane/kit built - purely coincidentally - in their state can safely be increased by a few hundred million $.... More generally, there's a fair amount of real-world evidence (and the RAF have been good at this) that pairing 4.5 Gen and 5th Gen aircraft is a very effective (and less costly) means of doing things than investing in an all-5th Gen force. In time, of course, this will stop being a sensible means of doing it, but when you throw in things like 'loyal wingman', etc, etc, then the combination makes sense for the foreseeable future.

Badly expressed on my part; I meant in the context of in the instances where the load was reduced to five, the reason given (from TGR mates across the three locations) was the weight being the consideration. I forget whether the raid on Shaibah right at the end of January originated from Muharraq, but it's a cracking example of the full eight x 1000lb fit being used from medium level, as is the subsequent declassified MISREP - which I think is in the link I provided - where the aircrews complain that despite managing to get 60 odd bombs in the right target area, it still wasn't close enough to cause much damage to the hangars and please could they have Paveways ASAP? Thinking about it, I have a recollection that Tabuk might have flown without the TSCs on some of the low-level sorties. As I am actively discouraged from visiting my office until Mr Johnson says it's OK to do so, I'll have to wait to get into the filing cabinet with the relevant material in it to see if that thought's right or not...