In what way ???

Can you please elaborate??

Cheers

Ke

It never properly went into series production, Tupolev tweeked the design as they built each airframe. I presume the differences are less marked with the later built aircraft but if you compare some pictures of the different Tu160 built from pre-production through to initial series production you will notice some detail changes.

More responsible media reporting…

Back in the 80s they paniced when a Bentwaters A-10 was seen a few miles away… so they naturally assumed it was out of control and could have hit the station.

Instead of saying anything usefull or explaining the regulations or any airspace restrictions, the RAF simply said “It’s not us…besides we fly carefully…” giving the reporter the verbal annunition needed to make the USAF sound like cowboys…

Brilliant…

A Hog might be tough but it wouldn’t make much of a scratch on a UK nuclear powerstation.

I wish the British press especially the BBC who are a serial offender would employ a better millitary technology advisor.

Actually its one of the things that irritates me about the anti nuclear power enviro types always wheel this out as an argument against nuclear power. They just don’t seem to realise that it would take alot of aircraft to actually make a serious dent on one of our powerstations and the security is heavy enough to deal with the average terrorist incursion.

It will be interesting to see if these extra Tu160 are to one standard, has anyone noticed that each one produced so far is slightly different to each other?

Well..I am not sure if that is the case.After following this for a loooooong time:rolleyes: it appears to me that be it having regular press releases , anouncing JVs , appearing for airshows etc. US companies are trying the hardest in the PR dept.In fact if I were to make a list for the effort:D it would be like this:
1.LM
2.Boeing
(close competition among 1 & 2)
3.Mig
4.SaaB
5.EADS
6.Dassault.
In the end it will(or should) depend only upon the proposals given by each co. and subsequent evaluation but I think always being in front of the eyes helps!

I have also been following this process for a looooooong time :rolleyes: (I too can be flippant!)

I can asume that you are using very selective viewing when you are going through these press reports. OK a release from an American news sources is going to be very positive but so are those from Russian and European sources.

If you only looked at American press reports then you would think that an American mannufacturer had all but won the competition but if you read only Russian reports you would easily take a different opinion.

As I said before I and many other people would be Surprised if Boeing or Lockmart won the deal if you want lists I would place it like this:

1)Dassault
2)Mig
3)EADS
4)SAAB
5)Lockmart
6)Boeing

I suggest you wait for the decision before crowing over a (highly unlikely)victory that an American manufacturer has as of yet not got!

Frankly there is no evidence that India is going to be buying the Goshawk and for that matter I don’t see why a few here have such clear certainty that Boeing or Lockmart have the MMRCA competition in the bag.
From what I can see Dassault and EADS have done far better so far in trying to push their products. Adopting the Super Hornet or F16 will require a serious logistics change, India already has an overly complicated logistics chain adding to it hardly helps. For that matter the logistics issue hampers the EADS bid.
Maybe people should wait for their eggs to hatch before they count the chickens.

For large aircraft the Boom is the superior method (one of the reasons why the new RAF tankers should include the boom) whilst for fighter aircraft hose is the better transfer method.

When the USAF adopted the fling boom in the 50’s with the large purchase of KC135 it was for strategic bombers and the fighter community resisted the change from the hose method that had been the standard in the USAF.

The USAF has looked at going back to probe equipped fighters several times even to the point costing the change for the F15 and F16 fleet (this would of been a hybrid solution with the boom slot being retained) and adopting it for the F22 out of the box.

I have placed a link to this PDF before but here it is again, it is a report for the US congress about this subject which raises some interesting points:

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

Of course with the F35 there is a chance to choose either/or when it comes to refueling. Its interesting to note that when the X35 STOVL variant was being tested it used the boom refueling method rather than the hose which would be the choice of most customers of this model. I don’t see why customers of the F35 won’t be able to choose their preferred refueling method for whichever model they want to buy. I can certainly see customer’s of the A model wanting probes rather then receptacles.

Well this is what IAI Bedek has to say about their tanker conversions:

http://www.iai.co.il/sip_storage/files/1/34151.pdf

Out of curiosity is the IAI boom a version of the Boeing one or totally inhouse.

“Believed to be used in the final assault on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)…”
Final assault? Let me guess, this war is over before it’s Christmas? Sure, one little surge this decades-old civil conflict will suddenly be over and done with :rolleyes:

Not the best-written article, to say the least.

If they were really smart, they’d build some aircraft shelters at Katunayake. If not, these MiGs will only be fresh yet mushy-soft targets for an LTTE mortar attack, or Zlin-dropped handgranades.

Indeed, now the Sri Lanka armed forces need to get to grip’s with basic airfield defence.

Considering the number of times its happened now they have no excuse really. The silly thing is there are plenty of very affordable AAA systems on the market with short to medium range radar that would make Swiss Cheese of any Zlin. On the ground they need to be far more careful about the defence of their primary facilities from ground attack.