Hats off to Boeing for having the vision to shoot for a quantum leap with the Dreamliner – but far too often they’ve been too conservative, and have made smaller steps – like the embarrassingly lame warmed-over Jumbo that is the 747-8. Too often they’ve given away their lead, as they have done with tankers.

What a ridiculous statement, the 747-8 has been successful in the commercial market beyond even Boeing’s wildest dreams, I’m not sure how that could be considered embarassing by anyone.

Any idea what it is?

That’s the reloading crane, that’s why the missile capacities of the VLS groups on the Tico’s are only 61 missiles, because those cranes take up three cells. I believe they have started deleting the crane from more recent Arleigh Burkes (increasing their missile capacity to 32 + 64 from 29 + 61), but I can’t remember if they’re going to remove them from ships already in service (I don’t think so, but they might from some). Basically, the reloading cranes are never used which is why they’re being deleted (you only need to use the reloading crane at sea, not when reloading in port, and basically the missiles just aren’t being replenished at sea).

Indonesia already has the 737 Surveiller for maritime patrol. Curious as to what parts of the Surveiller will be presented as ‘new’ for this 737MMA…

I would guess few to none, especially considering the very limited role of the Surveiller compared to the MMA (the Surveiller is basically a surface search aircraft) and the fact that the Surveiller is based on the 737-200, which is two generations older than the 737NG that the MMA will be based on.

Originally posted by Steve Touchdown
No contest: Merlin every time.

Size isn’t a problem, the Royal Navy are now operating the Merlin from Type 23 (Duke Class) frigates in place of the Lynx:

The Type 23 frigate was designed from the get-go to accomdate the Merlin though, so I’m not sure what that proves … it was much larger than necessary for the Lynx from the start … what you really get into then is the choice of whether you’d prefer two Lynx/SH-60/AB 212 types or 1 EH 101/SH-3/NH 90 type … arguments could be made either way, but realistically you need similar size facilities for either option, so which is better …

Personally, I think the US’ choice to go with 2 SH-60 size types is more prudent in general for surface combatants … gives a much greater ability for the unit to operate autonomously, but certainly there are valid arguments to be made for a larger chopper (I still think the EH 101 is overkill though and the NH 90 is a better solution!).

Originally posted by google
Hey hey, don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just reporting what the article said, and when I read it, I found it very strange as well. Actually, the article said “can carry twice the number of bombs as the Longbow.” What?! bombs? since when can the Lonbow carry bombs?

LOL … that may be more accurate …

The thing is, in US service, the Hellfire is the Predator’s weapon of choice anyway … which is of course the AH-64’s weapon of choice too … an AH-64 can carry 16 Hellfire + 4 Stinger + 1200 rounds of 30 mm ammo (and the gun to shoot it with of course!) … I’d be surprised if the Predator B could lift that much payload, never mind doubling it!

BTW, just did some quick looking around … max takeoff weight of the Predator B (this is total weight) is 6,400 lbs … the gross weight of a fully armed AH-64D Longbow (not even max takeoff weight, though it’s probably not much higher) is 16,600 lbs …

Originally posted by frankvw
Now look at the NH’s cabin size… You’ll see that it is TINY.

The NH 90 can carry 20 troops in crashworthy seats … I’d hardly call that tiny … that’s about twice as much as the Lynx or UH-1/AB 212 families …

Originally posted by frankvw
Have you already seen both in real life ? :rolleyes:

Maximum Take-off weights:

NH 90 – 10.5 tonnes
SH-3 – 9.5 tonnes
UH-1/AB-212 – 5.0 tonnes
Lynx – 5.0 tonnes

The numbers speak for themselves …