While I can understand the waxing issue, to me it does seem unlikely that both engines would suffer exactly the same problem at approximately the same time to within a few seconds, when they each have a different fuel feed. No doubt the experts will be enlightening us in the next few days
How are these things announced ? Is there a formal report with a series of closely argued points that clarifies why the decision was made ? Or is it simply a case of saying “X or Y has won the competition and congratulations” ?
Latest speculation in the Times – Ice blockage in fuel.
I would imagine that Phalanx or similar would certainly be on the equipment list for C2.
I am pretty sure it was before breakfast. I have just spoken to a contact at the airport and round about the time of your flight things are generally quietening down after the early morning rush.
Getting off the plane rarely takes more than 40 minutes at most airports in my experience. I don’t recall being held up unduly at Stansted when ever I have flown in.
Early in the morning can be a problem based upon my own and friends experience. I nearly missed an easyjet flight to Glasgow last year as it took me 2 hours 15 minutes to get the departure gate from joining the check in queue. There were mega queues for check in and security. I was really cheesed off 😡
I don’t recall ever having seen anything decent on the internet at all about Helix. Maybe that is intentional
So if they are looking for a larger airframe, then something that is already in service or about to be in service sounds likely.
It could be a A330 – Long range and long loiter and masses of space
To me it just doesn’t sound right that they would use an RC-135 unless they are going to gut the airframes and rebuild them. Sounds unlikely though but their would be some commonalities with the E-3.
Tristar – not a hope, old and tired and parts will soon be a big issue.
VC10 – same
C-17 probably too big and not quite the right layout.
New build Nimrod with a body stretch ? Again too expensive
Any other options ?
I suspect that the only option might be to convert an MRA4 airframe in a crash program to R1 spec and just dob out the cash regardless. The capability is needed right now and there are plenty of other candidates for grounding to save money if the R1 offers so much utility in current operations.
There is a single line note in the Telegraph (while discussing the story about the new London City to New York BA flights) that the 777 has been written off and the insurance claim has been agreed in full.
Would a derivative of the successful Rolls Royce UT design be considered for C3 ? From what I understand they are a very flexible vessel and would seem to be the right size. See attached pdf which is a patrol boat but something a little more warlike would no doubt be available
http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/downloads/design/ut517_fact.pdf
Does an arrangement like that allow for a degree of in flight thrust vectoring to aid manoeuvring in close combat ?
I am amazed that they have even managed to hold onto a dozen Sea Harriers even if they can’t fly. Don’t tell the bean counters :diablo: