AESA kit, in the F-18E/F form, offers faster workload sharing. One example: where the backseater is happy using the air to ground mode, and the front seater is happy using the air to air mode. All what appears to be …. at the same time.

Having already read some of his stuff in the past, I can assure you that I do not want to page through it. :diablo:

But this is the point I was making earlier – the selective presentation of scientific facts to meet an agenda.

Mr Crichton does have an agenda in this respect, as some of his writings and his speeches readily demonstrate.

According to the New Scientist website, a team from the University of Texas is suggesting that the rate of melting of the Greenland ice cap is accelerating. An unrelated study by the NASA JPL earlier this year came to the same conclusion.

No amount of documented scientific fact in the backs of novels can halt, or reverse, this process.

Now, these scientists are experts in their field and they release their findings in authoritative and peer-reviewed journals, not airport bookshop novels.

Just to put things into context, the Greenland Ice Sheet holds 10% of the world’s land-based ice and would raise the average sea level by about 25 feet if it all melted.

And there is little man can do to stop it. Get over it.

Iran’s acquisitionof new-generation TOR-M1 SAMs and this reported order for SU-30s just strengthens the case for building more than 183 Raptors.

TOR-M1 is not a serious threat. Even legacy jets dropping PGMs from miles away at 30~40k won’t be bothered much by it. Where as dumb as the idea is of bombing Iran,… that is all that would happen. No land campaign. The real backlash of bombing Iran, is a rise up of 4th gen warfare in Iraq vs. our forces there of which are already way too few to do the job of making Iraq stable.

http://www.junkscience.com

:diablo:

Now that we have the subject open, why not? It would almost make sense that they get them someday, just from a practical point of view. Or is it not practical? Or do you think new fighter airframes for them would be Chinese instead of Russian?

The idea that the Flanker doesn’t have dominating range is silly. Now do the pounds per hour fuel burn at 35 or 36,000 ft and see what you come up with.

I have a note from my doctor that says I don’t do aviation figures in metric. 😀

C-17 is one utterly uneconomical beast and should be completely ignored by Euro nations (well it actually is, except Britain). Without any preference of Russian stuff it is MUCH more economical to follow Abu Dhabi example and to lease or purchase a small fleet of An-124s, which are at least as venerable, somewhat more expensive to operate but several times cheaper to procure and maintain. I still don’t get it why someone needs to procure a flying cargo bus built with almost fighter-class technology and having almost insane price tag.

The AN124 thing has it’s uses. Until some kind of deployment important to you, conflicts with Ukraine ( note the tilt of their new leader ) interest. Given last years petro squeeze power play, that might become interesting over time. An AN124 is not a C-17 just as a C-17 is not an AN-124. AN124 is great for big cargo, but not all missions require that. C-17 can go into garbage no_nav_aid fields at night with no lighting, using NVGs, the HUD. An A400 could prove to be a great great airplane. However, it does not fly today and can not contribute to todays ops. The comparison of maintenance is not even valid either as the capabilities of the two aircraft you mention are different.

What are the pros and cons of canards anyway?

Depends. One of the advantages for the fixed ones when put on the Kfir were that it reduced it’s take-off roll with a heavy bomb load. A nice advantage all by itself.