Then we are talking about different things ppp, I am talking about autonomous UCAV. You are talking about man in loop UCAV…different thing! Which brings me back to the earlier issue that if there is a data link it can be jammed!

The thing about the school bus is not a dig at you, just stating the reality of what such a system would entail.

Out of interest, do you (or anyone else) have a feel for how much it would cost to introduce conformal tanks on the Typhoon? I did google “Cost of integrating conformal tanks on Eurofighter” and nothing came up. I just wondering how much the RAF would need to set aside in their equipment budget to allow them to maximal use out of their Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons in the long range strike mission.

No idea, I think if we are going down the conformal tank path we also need to add in the cost of the uprated EJ230 engines to allow for the increased fuel and munitions load.

How much do the F16 conformal tanks cost? Thats probably a good starting point thrashing out some figures.

I thought that transport of most of the kit back home had been decided on, as it finally dawned on the gubbinmint that shipping it home isn’t actually very expensive, & with all that kit in service, it’d be easy to resist army requests for new AFVs, etc. They’re also concerned about the bad PR of abandoning billions of quids worth of stuff to Afghan scrap merchants & the Taliban.

Yeah, they’ll leave behind lots of low-value high-bulk stuff, to the benefit of the locals, but vehicles (the UOR stuff is almost all wheeled) can be driven in convoy through Pakistan to a port, from where sea transport home is pretty cheap (what do we have six militarised ro-ros for?), & high-value lightweight stuff can be flown out.

The no-brainer interim MPA solution is a software mod to give the Sentinels improved over water performance. They’re paid for, in service, & work, & it deals with the opposition to retiring them early without seeming to back down.

Well we shall see, the UOR world is not as Rosy as some would portray in certain newspapers and blogs. Certainly there is one certain UOR which I don’t expect to be retained or for that matter even see a picture…”Exactor” or better known as the Rafael NLOS Spike.

Yeah, but one of the partners in AirTanker is Cobham, so a modest contract revision shouldn’t be impossible. Buddy refuelling is such a niche capability it wouldn’t impact on their revenues, & the pod sale would make them money.

I’m much more annoyed by the contract stopping us fitting A400M as tankers. Two sets of gear (one as a spare & for training) & we could leave a single A400M at Mount Pleasant as duty tanker/transport. Whoever negotiated that should be shot.

A400 in my opinion a better solution for MPA, its fuel offload as a tanker is similar to the VC10 and it picks up the role currently performed by a C130. That’s a reduction of one airframe and doesn’t tie up one of the limited number of Voyagers we have.

On a side note I am of the opinion that the Falklands government should procure something like an ATR72 or Dash-8 MPA to pick up some of the work that is currently being performed by the on station C130. I think they have the budget to afford it and it offloads the RAF from doing a task with a less then suitable aircraft. An AT72 or Dash-8 would be well suited to patrolling their fisheries (and oil fields)and dropping dingy to sinking fishing boats etc…

Simple over the years the RAF’s deep strike plans have been cut via SSDR and back door cuts! Switching back to F35B pretty much kills it, now I am realistic the RAF will soldier on Typhoon and F35B will have as much munitions integrated as possible and the Voyager procurement will help out with range issues.

Now as I am sure others will point out F35B and Typhoon can do the deep and persistent strike the RAF want to do the catch is availability of airframes. Actually operating conventionally from a longer runway the F35B figures stack up pretty well vs GR4 using the external stores pylons. The thing is we barely have enough Typhoon to perform QRA duties as well as meet the out of service date and the F35B will have to share tasking’s with the navy. The dedicated capability is gone…I suppose it does take you into a separate debate about what you want out of the armed forces.

Ageing non owned aircraft. Im less surprised. If they wanted WW routes, they could have just opened up their own. Was never going to happen.

Agreed the BMI Baby fleet are elderly hand me downs from BMI.

In many ways as has already been pointed out its an unfair comparison. They are in different performance classes so not directly competing against each other. CATIC is more then likely working under export restrictions (albeit China has been shown to be more then willing to bend those agreements). Any potential buyer of the Z-11 already has the more then affordable Eurocopter AS350 available with its well established support network. Anybody going for Z-11 has to rely on an unknown level of support (albeit I haven’t heard any particular complaint about Chinese support for other types). On the other hand the Z-11 is attractive to nations who are interested in developing their aerospace industrial base through joint production as with Argentina.

As for the Dhruv I would hardly call it a sales success as of yet, looking at the list of sales its to minor 2nd and 3rd world airforces except for Israel who have purchased one so far. Of those exports I think some were gifts from the Indian government anyway. Looking at total sales of the Dhruv through its program life compared to other manufacturers, Bell or Eurocopter can sell more of an equivalent type in just one year!

In many ways its the the same issue the Z-11 has when it comes to the crunch and I am an organisation who wants a helicopter in that class I am probably going to be choosing a Bell 412 or Eurocopter AW139…or just buy more Mi17/Mi171 despite its larger size.

Well yes and no, it looks like there are at least two flying prototypes one with the latest high power WS-10G variant and another probably with AL31. That is entirely in keeping with China’s hi-lo risk policy when it comes to defence development. That would allow different prototypes to focus and different aspects of testing. The higher powered WS-10G variant appears to have a vectored thrust nozzle and is probably focussed on expanding the flight envelope in preparation for the WS-15. The lower powered but known to reliable AL31 prototype with non vectoring nozzles is probably more focussed on systems certification. Just speculation on my part but in keeping with a sensible test program.

Considering the WS-10G is needed for the J-15 development program which is further ahead then the J-20 and critical if the carrier is to start testing and the WS-10B is needed for the J-11B regiments standing up its entirely sensible to use AL31 on some of the J-20 prototypes that are still early in their test program.