I doubt there are any Comanche cruising around in secret, I’m hard pressed how the extra airframes could of been built in secret.

As for the Stealth Blackhawk, Fort Campbell where the 160th SOAR is based has significant engineering and development facilities. It was apparently an in house kit developed there.

Now if you want American aerospace mysteries then I suggest you look into the world of the XB-70 Valkryie! Firstly significant materials intended for the third unbuilt prototype AV-3 were apparently scrapped but nobody has been able to verify that actually happened. Secondly of the 31 highly exotic YJ-93-3 engines built only 17 have been accounted for the rest in effect disappeared into a black hole for all we know (well OK a black hole called Groom Lake – but I’m not one for conspiracy theories usually;)) .

Indeed considering the sensitive nature of the information you are going to be hard pressed getting any actual figures about Western ASW systems.

In the end its your tax dollars…

The delays in the KC-767 program for Italy and Japan are certainly noted, but compared to the A400M? Please….let’s get serious shall we?

Using the KC-767 delays as a reason to discount Boeing in comparison to Airbus is a joke in light of the disaster that has been the A400M program.

Yes I am being totally serious! A400 is a TOTALLY new aircraft, the Italian and Japanese tankers were based on an off the shelf airframe. A400 development is progressing nicely now and is ahead of schedule. Trying to say problems in the 767 program were OK in comparison to those in the A400 doesn’t compare! Boeing made a mess of something that they said would be easy! It should also be noted that the delays have been longer then those with the Australian KC-30. Boeing now wants to make a Frankentanker! I will eat my hat if it has a painless development program!

The whole size argument has been done to death, there are plenty of people who feel the a330 offers much more then the Boeing.

UK delays are nothing to do with aircraft development! They are everything to do with my government selecting a PFI scheme to finance the program and then finding excuses over the years to delay payment.

The bottom line is that both Boeing and Airbus have had their own struggles with their newer tanker types so trying to say that Airbus is that much better than Boeing when it comes to delivering new tankers is nonsense.

Your right they have both had struggles but I think it is nonsense to assume that Boeing has some kind of magical ability to get it right now. The US DOD has placed some very tight program goals which many in the industry are scratching their head over how Boeing will meet them.

Sorry to remind you, Boeing does know what it’s doing…the KC-46 is low risk.

Tell the Italians and Japanese that!:rolleyes: All Boeing had to do was take a standard model 767 and convert it into a tanker…what happened? Years of problems and technical delays! So don’t tell me that the KC46 which is based on an airframe built up of parts from many different models is low risk…

Just because Boeing built lots of tankers in the 1950/60’s doesn’t make them good at it now, actually evidence shows otherwise with later programs.

In respect of A400 the most significant delay was due to a mess up in retaining documentation in respect of certification of the engines rather then anything inherently wrong with the aircraft. It should also be noted that testing is ahead of schedule now.

Finally as has pointed out many times before, European nations have purchased for more defence equipment off America then the other way round.

As I said its your tax dollars to burn…

Well I certainly hope that they can deliver on time and on budget…I love what the KC-135 has done for my chosen branch of the armed forces over the years, but I just hope the remaining examples can serve safely for the remainder of their service lives.

I’m excited to see what the future holds with this new aircraft despite the criticism of some who think it wasn’t the correct choice.

Well I am also interested in how it does (including how delayed it will be and how many million/billion dollars over budget) but it doesn’t stop me thinking they made the wrong choice. Remember we still don’t know what Boeing are exactly offering unlike EADS which has an actual aircraft very close to the required specification being tested now!

In the end its your tax dollars…

Its a can of worms in the end and Americas problem, if KC46 works fine, but if it runs in to trouble there is always the EADS product waiting to clear up the mess!

Well my guess Jonesy is that the internal fit out is pretty much done and sea trials can be started with her looking a bit rough around the edges on the outside. Then bring her back for a good paint in time for her official launch.

Pity we can’t see her deck edge lifts, I wonder what state they are in now?

Well its rather cool use of the music from Modern Warfare 2. (Stoked for MW3 by the way).

I presume looking at the intake that its supersonic. As for the sub munitions wouldn’t fighter style chaff dispensers be small, lighter and easier to install. When the missile is in the terminal phase it pumps out some chaff to help blind the defences.

Whats the reason for the strike?