OK now I’m confused… from the colour scheme and and Technical Order rendering of Royal Air Force, I would have said that this is a USAF 135W being leased to the RAF.

But elsewhere it is stated that KC-135Rs are being converted for the RAF, so why apply FS paint colours ( that the RAF doesn’t stock ) and incorrect lettering? Why not barley grey like the rest of the RAF ISAR fleet?

Never mind why we’re taking a non-standard airframe anyway. *sigh*

The RAF uses commercial airline paint-shops these days who will paint whatever colour you want.

Air Livery Ltd have been doing it recently in Manchester:

http://www.airlivery.com/air-livery-services/military-aircraft

Agree with that, but, with a different slant….just as the Light Blue ran a Typhoon drag to MPA a little while back to prove out the capability…an F-35B drag down to Port Stanley followed by a few AD and Strike serials from the short strip would be a very useful evolution on a few different levels from commitment to FI security to RAF rapid-deployment and forward basing capability.

Oh certainly Jonesy, a drag down to MPA using Voyager. Interesting as I presume a Voyager could carry all the support personnel and spare parts as well as tank the F-35B.

Once in the Falklands a series of scenario based exercises including QRA, Air Superiority, Reconnaissance and ground mapping with the AN/APG-81 (which can do high resolution mapping (SAR) and multiple ground moving target detection (GMTI)), Strike and Maritime strike. Also practising using alternative strips like the short strips (if they can handle F-35B) and Stanley airport.

Of course Argentina will be spitting tacks but who listens to them anyway?

An idea!

Oh cool will look into that, Key Publishing has no problem extracting money out of me! 😉

Whilst we have a representative of the publisher can I take the opportunity to make a magazine suggestion for a gap I perceive in the market! I was going to suggest it at the Key Pub tent at the Waddington airshow but the ediitor was wasn’t to be seen.

Can I suggest that Key Publishing launches a sister magazine to AFM called MFM. That acronym standing for Maritime Forces Monthly, the fact is there is only one magazine in the UK that dedicates itself to military ship news which is frankly rather poor consisting mainly of vitriol about the state of the Royal Navy, attacks on the RAF and hardly any detailed news or reports on navies or warships. I think Key Pub could really fit that niche for a high quality magazine in the style of AFM with a mix of news, articles about ships, navies and analysis of technology. There could even be a monthly attritions page as I know the editor so enjoys having it in the AFM pages ;). The other magazine in the market that has Warship and Fleet in its title often will only have a few pages mentioning an actual warship with hardly any depth of information whilst filling the rest of the magazine with highly bias opinion pieces, something AFM is pretty good at avoiding!

I would certainly add a subscription to that magazine and feel there would be many here on this forum who would also buy it…and even offer articles…even I might get the typewriter out :cool:.

Please Key Pub have think about it

Fedaykin24

Badger is indeed the expert here but as i understand it when the pilot feels the jet slamming into the deck they push the throttle to full just in case they miss a wire and have to go around. Interestingly this is the main reason the French rejected the Jaguar as a carrier type as the throttle response wasn’t quick enough in the event of a bolter.

If you listen carefully to the Super Hornets landing on the Enterprise in this video you can hear the engines going full tilt until the pilot throttles them back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGQy5ImbnNI

I presume the Ecuador Cheetah C deal also involved the cream of the crop when it came to airframes plus a degree of spares reclamation from the airframes left behind (if they had any sense). So I wonder how viable the remaining unsold airframes are for reactivation.

What should be noted is the FAA are increasing Pampa numbers and they can return more A-4AR Fightinghawk to service in the interim.

Same old same old is it JSR, i am in the mood so I will pick apart your fantasy assertions again:

There is clear shortage of money and technical ability that inhibit from creating a world class product.

The Chinese appear to be prepared to spare no expense whatsoever in the modernisation of their aerospace and defence industry. They even purchased, overhauled and pressed into service an aircraft carrier that every respected naval analyst regarded as a rusty basket case. They have multiple new generation fighter programs, multiple transport aircraft programs, multiple UAV programs and are churning out new warships faster then any other country in the world at the moment. Hardly the signs of a country suffering froma lack of money.

You will see 300 IL-476 but you will never see even 50 Y-20.

Well that is nice for the IL-476 I wish them every success on the other hand do you have direct contact with the Chinese government? The Y-20 program has been conducted in high secrecy and so far we have had some very blurry pictures of one prototype. We are in no position to draw any conclusions yet about the programs success or how many will be built. What we do know is China is desperate for more medium to heavy airlift partially due to Russia not being able to service the long standing contract for more IL-76. Anything you say about possible Y-20 numbers at the moment is pure speculation.

There is no 10 year procurement budget in China. thats why you see that dysfunctional spending on obsolete products like JH-7B in 2012.

As far as I am aware the Peoples Republic of China does not work to a 10 year budget. They do reveal how much they spend on procurement but clearly hide their R&D budget. I am no expert but I am sure Deino would have a better understanding, but your assertion from this statement that effectively China is dysfunctional when it comes to its defence procurement is absurd! As you have already been told the JH-7B is still being procured because it fits a niche in their armed forces. It is an affordable indigenous strike platform that can carry all their latest precision munitions and also has some of their most advanced avionics.

and still using obsolete D-30 engines in vast numbers for various products. when Russia everything is now going towards PS-90 modifications.

D-30 is cheap to procure and again fits a niche within their defence requirements, just because it isn’t state of the art doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. For the H-6 the D-30 represents a vast improvement over the previous engine and it allows the Y-20 to enter testing whilst the WS-10 derivative is further developed.

how is Supersonic bomber not usefull. It can act on real time moving target much faster at far distances. it give greater energy to missile launchs. and with higher powered engines it works as much powerfull EW and Survellence platform. It can escape better from fighters.
In bomber case low cost solution is not the right one.

Errr where did I say a Super sonic dash capability is not useful JSR?

I said not as useful these days a statement which has a completely different meaning. Also in a later post I clearly state how the B-1B’s super-sonic dash capability has been highly useful in Afghanistan.

On the other hand a stand off long range ALCM carrier doesn’t need to be supersonic to perform its primary task as proven by the B-52 and the Tu-95!

Please do keep up…