Yeppp….. a very nice Christmas present from Xi’an !

Looks like an enlarged YC-15, presumably the Soloviev D-30 are an interim solution until the high bypass WS-10 derivative is ready.

I’m baffled!:confused::confused::confused:

F-35A can be fitted for probe refuelling and Lockheed Martin has done the background work for Canada along with designing in a drag chute.

A number of F-35A customers have expressed interest in going for probe refuelling and the space is kept free in the aircraft for it. I wonder if this is sneaky way of dropping the tankers by blaming it on F-35.

I’m going to regret answering this JSR but the answer is simple.

The customer has to be in a position to receive the aircraft! Logistics have to be set up and personnel trained. Whilst the Typhoon has four open production lines and no doubt aircraft could be diverted off them as was done for the Saudis. The delivery date will be driven by the customer in this case Oman, nothing nefarious about that.

New DASS modes? I guess they make the step from “no mode” to “still no mode”.

@Toan
There will be at least one additional IPA as part of the German T3A.

Well let me re-clarify they will apparently have some kind of DASS 😉 as well as IFF, so at least they won’t shoot each other down by accident!

Progress I suppose…

Yeah as Swerve says best to not over interpret things at the moment! Cerberus and Vigilance or on the cards at the moment and both offer advantages and disadvantages. Personally I would lean towards Vigilance as it is a next generation system but Cerberus with judicious upgrades has its merits!

Who are they for? Do they already operate the F-16? If that is the case then there wouldn’t be the costs for logistic and support equipment.

Middle bow is on!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/8271066753/in/photostream/

Starting to look like a ship rather then a collection steel blocks…

Well if it really was going to be a fitted for but not with design then right from the get go they would of designed in all the stuff that can’t be easily back fitted later below decks. That means cabling, pipes and the like. That costs money and the treasury was never going to release that. Also at that point we didn’t even know if EMALS was viable so do you prepare for steam just in case? The CVF design team all the way through to main-gate were being asked to shave stuff off if it wasn’t essential. The only reason that the carrier even got the expensive automated weapons handling system is that costs less then the crew needed as an alternative.

The adaptable design sounded like a great idea at the time but the execution was not good, I actually wonder if the navy backed the idea purely to make sure they got a 65 thousand ton carrier! If they hadn’t gone for the adaptable sic design then I have no doubt the process through to main-gate would of reduced the tonnage down to the 40 thousand ton mark. The capability management studies all show that 65 thousand tons is right but it would of been hard to resist treasury pressure without the caveat that we might be converting it in the future and CATOBAR operations suit larger vessels!