[QUOTE=AndyMcnebb;1081445]
Norway
Navy: 6 NFH (ASW),
Coastcard: 8 NFH
10 NFH (SAR) (optie)
QUOTE]Yes. This are the right numbers for Norway. But the optinal 10 NFH (SAR) order, are unlikely to happend. Only the Norwegian AirForce field the NH-90
as our best choice as our new SAR platform. Our rescueworkers and other
experts whant it removed in the new SAR platform cometition due to its
lack of range and flytime..
Thanks, never knew that, keep us update. Interesting though, because the NH-90 will be used as a CSAR platform. I suspect one of the key elements in these kind of missions is range.
Realy I thought they were all broken up. Just to make sure they were not to fly ever again π‘
No.
The NZ birds were new once and the Aussi one’s where secound hand ex-USN examples. I seem to remember that this was the rude of the problem. Does the Polish navy have the same problem?
Back to the subject:
These seems to be the order book at the moment:
France:
Marine Nationale: 27 NFH
Italy
Army: 60 TTH
Navy: 46 NFH, 10 TTH
Airforce: 1TTH/CSAR (optie)
Germany
Heer: 54 TTH + 26 TTH (optie)
Luftwaffe: 30 TTH + 24 TTH (optie)
Marine: 30 NFH (MH-90)
The Netherlands
Royal Navy: 20 NFH
Portugal
Army: 10 TTH
Spain
Army: 48 TTH
Airforce: 28 TTH/CSAR
Navy: 28 NFH/TTH/CSAR
Sweden
In total: 13 TTT (SAR), 5 NFH (ASW) + 7 (optie)
Finland:
In total 20 TTT (SAR)
Norway
Navy: 6 NFH (ASW),
Coastcard: 8 NFH
10 NFH (SAR) (optie)
Greece
In total: 16 TTH, 4 TTH (speciale operaties) + 14 TTH (optie)
Oman
In total: 20 TTH
Australia
Army / navy: 46 MRH-90 (TTH)
New Sealand
Royal New Zealand Air Force: 8 NH90
Belgium
Aircomponent: 10, waarschijnlijk 5 TTH en 5 NFH
Saudi-Arabia
In total: 64
Any more?
They didn’t fare well against Harriers in the Falklands, but the Entard isn’t a fighter, its air-mud/sea.
Did they ever fight the Harriers? I always thought that they just sneaked up the British fleet, popped up to fire they excocet missile and went home. They only had five Superettendards with five missiles to begin with. So their role was over pretty soon. They were pretty effective in this way. But please correct me if Iβm wrong.
Any more?
And yes, the F18L for USAF is a good choice, too… the great idea is to make a land-based version of the Navy fighters (Tomcats and Hornets) and throw away F-16 and Eagles!!
Well, the USAF disagreed with you, since the F-18L was basicly the YF-17 which as we all know lost to the YF-16. :diablo:
A Dutch F-4F (sorry, print only)
This aircraft was repainted on the July, 11th 1983 by Dutch technicians at
Twenthe Air Base into a Dutch F-4 βPhantom IIβ. The aircraft flew two times in
this livery. During the flights parts of the self adhesive markings went lost.
On the next evening all markings where removed again and the rudder was
repainted into its original colour scheme. The code TW313 on the left side and
TW315 on the right side represented the two Twenthe based Dutch Squadrons. π
Not the best picture, but it is nice to see that the Phantom was yet again in Dutch service. π http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0773374/L/
In honour of the comedian Joep van het Heck (sp?)
Vulgair
Air Crash
Youp van ‘t Heck π
Looks like Boeing are back in the lead already. Never mind Airbus.
Airbus 46 – Boeing 68
see below
Air India have just orded 68 aircraft.
23 x 777s,
8 x 777-200LR (Longer Range) Worldliners and
15 x 777-300ERs (Extended Range),
27 x 787-8 Dreamliners.
18 x Next-Generation 737-800s. for Air India Express, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Air India,http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=38235&page=2
Well: The order, placed with Boeing in December 2005, is valued at more than $11 billion at list prices and deliveries are scheduled to begin in November 2006.
So placed in december 05, then it still is 46 – 0 for airbus π .
Good news for Airbus!
Already posted this once in another thread, but it’s so good it’s worth posting twice…
link is dead. Do you think the CIA has got anything to do with that :diablo:
A possibility…………..but what could be the alternative? That perhaps needs more thought.
Let’s just say that they had made it clear what they intended to do………..for expamle if you were aboard one of the aircraft involved in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre??????????????
That is the problem, how can you be absolutely sure? How many planes were hijacked for the purpose to make a statement or ransom or whatever versus how many planes where hijacked to purposely crash them? I think the balance would favour the first numerous times.
So if that is the case and you do attack the terrorist then there would more likely more people killed because of that then in any other way. I don’t think the hijackers (I dislike the word “terrorist”) will make their intentions clear to the passengers.
It is the same with a bank robbery, the best is to obey the people holding the gun so the authorities can deal with them, whom are trained to do so and more importantly have the means to do so.
But this is all hypothetical because how many of you can honestly say what they are going to do. I for one can’t.
A possibility…………..but what could be the alternative? That perhaps needs more thought.
Let’s just say that they had made it clear what they intended to do………..for expamle if you were aboard one of the aircraft involved in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre??????????????
That is the problem, how can you be absolutely sure? How many planes were hijacked for the purpose to make a statement or ransom or whatever versus how many planes where hijacked to purposely crash them? I think the balance would favour the first numerous times.
So if that is the case and you do attack the terrorist then there would more likely more people killed because of that then in any other way. I don’t think the hijackers (I dislike the word “terrorist”) will make their intentions clear to the passengers.
It is the same with a bank robbery, the best is to obey the people holding the gun so the authorities can deal with them, whom are trained to do so and more importantly have the means to do so.
But this is all hypothetical because how many of you can honestly say what they are going to do. I for one can’t.
Arthur: mate can you explain why all NATO marked planes are registered in Luxemburg?
Because Luxemburg was / is part of NATO-OTAN and didn’t have an air force of it’s own. Nice to note that they indeed are civilian registered. It might also have something to do with taxes ;-).
To add on that, space assets are predictible, hence you could hide something which you don’t want your opponent to see. (Might be a little difficult with a nucliar power station ofsome kind (who said Iran :)))