It seems developing a passenger version of a BWB is still more than problematic because of the pressurization issue (non circular cross-section) and the current state and capabilities of construction methods/materials.

However, one way I could see a BWB gaining a production foothold of some sort would be as an aerial tanker. Only a small portion (the very forward section) of the aircraft would have to be pressurized, and you would have an enormous amount of fuselage volume for fuel. Potentially, one might even be able to place two booms on such an aircraft (depending on a wide enough and thick enough wingspan), assuming one can account for preventing the booms from contacting the runway at take-off/landing, and a spread of enough width to refuel two fighters safely. Refueling drogues wouldn’t be much of issue. The high mounted powerplants would also seem to be ideal.

Of course, I’m but a mere novice at all this, and I do not pretend to account for the cost of development of such a beast without the benefit of a civilian counterpart to absorb some of the cost for a military role. 😮

Since the airframe is already cleared for use of the GAU-12, couldn’t the RAF simply borrow/procure, etc. a dozen or so such systems from the US and/or USMC?

Strikes me as a relatively simple solution, that would provide a significant increase in the utility of the handful of RAF GR.7/9s deployed.

Since this idea is very simple and seemingly practical, I’m sure there’s something I’m missing, or perhaps I am discounting organizational inertia and “Not invented here”-syndrome that affects us here in the US just as much.

Very recent experience has shown that a combat aircraft armed only with cannon still can be a difference maker – at least for the troops on the ground. The procurement of a few GAU-12 units seems to be a no-brainer. Then again, I might be an idiot. :rolleyes:

The US didn’t hesitate to send ships into the Gulf of Sidra when Khadaffy claimed the body as “territorial waters” (anyone remember “The Line of Death”?), I have little doubt that the US Navy will hesitate to sail off the coast of Venezuela either. The Sukhois pose little threat, and even if they did manage to put a hole in a US Navy ship for whatever reason, does anyone believe any US President (outside of another Jimmy Carter) would turn tail and ask for Castro Jr.’s forgiveness?

It’s one thing to buy top end military hardware, it’s another thing to train to the maximum of its potential and maintain a credible operational capability (i.e. spares, maintenance, etc.)

Not many in the US will lose sleep over Venezuela’s 20+ Sukhois. On the other hand, Chavez’s neighbors may feel threatened and act accordingly in the form of F-16 purchases and greater cooperation with US forces.

The flying boom will also see use with the Aussie’s Wedgetails.

Some favorites…

C-124 Globemaster II – “Old Shakey”

F/A-18A-D Hornet – “The Bug”

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet – “Super Bug”

CH-47 Chinook – “Sh*thook”

UH-60 Blackhawk – “CrashHawk”

A3D Skywarrior – “All 3 Dead” (re: lack of ejection seats and perceived likelihood of the crew safely bailing out).

B-26 Marauder – “The Baltimore Whore” – built by Martin (HQ’ed in Baltimore, Maryland USA), refers to the B-26’s small wing area i.e. “no visible means of support.”

Can’t confirm this wicked one, but have read it referring to the A-7 Corsair II – “Extra Chromosome Crusader”

But my favorite nickname of all is…

F-111 – “Switchblade Edsel” – the perfect combination of man & machine. “Switchblade” in obvious referece to the F-111’s swingwings. “Edsel” in reference to infamous US SecDef Robert Strange McNamara’s (the driving force behind the “TFX” program, who was also famously described as “knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing”) prior history at Ford Motor Company and Ford’s most notoriously unsuccessful car which was produced under his watch.

Which regime are you talking about? Both the Taliban and Saddam held that ability: I believe it was demonstrated that Saddam was built up to be an American boogyman in the case of 11/9/2001, though.
Where did al-Zarqawi go?
The fact that a large proportion of the foreigners are Saudis will be conveniently forgotten, no doubt…

– Within hours of the September 11, 2001 attacks Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were generally recognized as those responsible. I don’t believe there were too many with an understanding of the subject who thought Saddam responsible. al-Zarqawi ended up in Iraq (under Saddam’s regime’s care), as had other notorious terrorists such as Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and the Ansar al Islam organization. Saddam’s regime also provided cash to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

The fact that many (perhaps most?) of the foreign jihadis in Iraq are Saudis is not forgotten here. Saudi and Saudi-sponsored extremist madrassas are breeding grounds for these thugs.

:confused:Eh? By December 8, 1945 it was all over…

With good reason. Typo & error on my part, with apologies. That should read December 11, 1941.

By 1946/47 Germany…

.

The point was say the if the US were to ignore helping the UK in 1941, potentially resulting in Nazi victory, the US would face a much more dangerous threat in 1946/47 than that faced in 1941.

Whats so special about the 8th of December anyway?

That is the incorrect 😮 date that Nazi Germany declared war upon the United States.

As for Bliar – its remarkable what happens to an apparent socialist and (former?) card-carrying member of CND when he’s given the keys to the toy box, don’t you think?

Flood

– Even as seen from these shores, yes. I never had much regard for Mr. Blair or his politics before Sept. 11, 2001. I still don’t agree with much of his political philosophy, but I do respect and appreciate his position concerning the current conflict we all face.

Reason why people say US ignores the world is because choose to react only when it or its intrest is attacked . US abandoned afghanistan and didnt give a damn when taliban were wreaking havoc, i still remember US admin fail to even condone seriously the taliban blowing apart buddhist statues. Nor did it really take any action when terrorists were blowing apart moscow or mumbai.

Fair points. Let’s not forget that until 9/11/01 the US treated terrorism for the most part as a law enforcement problem. The US did issue a strongly worded condemnation :rolleyes: of the destruction of the Buddhist statues by the Taliban, appropriately while citing the equally as impotent UNESCO.

As for abandoning Afghanistan, I would disagree when one considers the conditions for the Soviet’s 1989 withdrawl from the country. One of those conditions was for the US to have a hands-off policy towards the country. Later on (beginning in 1997 and later in 1999, in the form of the CIA’s JAWBREAKER team sent to take down bin Laden), the US would go on to support and aid the Northern Alliance and Massoud, albeit limitedly. Ironically, the Bush Administration on 9/4/01 had approved a plan, rejected by the prior administration, to increase aid to Massoud in the form of ammunition, uniforms, mortars, helicopters, etc. Massoud was murdered on 9/10/01, and we all know what happened the next day. 😡

Afghanistan and the Taliban posed less of a threat to the United States and its allies than Saddam’s Iraq on September 10, 2001. However, the regime had the means and will to shelter, train, and provide shelter to those that would wish to do the United States harm. To cite but one example, al-Zarqawi was wounded on the battlefields of Afghanistan, where did he go for sanctuary and medical attention? The so-called “insurgents” (of which considerable proportion are actually foreigners) currently causing havoc in Iraq, what sort of rule and disposition would they wish for that nation? Does one really think they will stop their terror if the US & UK simply cut and run?

I guess on December 8, 1945 the people of the United States could have complained that Germany would have never declared war against the US if FDR had only stood up to PM Churchill before engaging in such provocative acts against Nazi Germany such as Lend-Lease and engaging in an undeclared war (without Congressional approval or “League of Nations” sanction) by providing convoy protection halfway across the Atlantic for ships carrying US war material to Britain. After all, it was the Japanese that attacked the United States, sunk our Pacific fleet, and killed over 2,200 Americans, not Germany. Still, we dedicated most of our resources to defeating Germany, a nation that posed little threat to the United States in 1941. Looking back in retrospect, there’s little doubt that the United States’ pre-12/8/41 support of Great Britain was the right thing to do, as was the priority given to defeating the Germans (By 1946/47 does a triumphant Nazi Germany have the atomic bomb?).

Is there any question that Saddam would pose an even greater threat than the pre-9/11/2001 Taliban as he continued to dodge UN sanctions and/or, in the name of the children of Iraq, those sanctions were progressively lifted? The same holds true for the mullahs in Iran. I guess one could fool themselves into believing that their nuclear program is an effort to provide, cheap, clean and efficient electric power in an effort to abide by the spirit of the Kyoto Treaty.

The problem isn’t the US & UK “ignoring the world.” The problem is that a significant proportion of the world ignores the Global War that is afire all around them in the name of militant Islam (see: Afghanistan, India, Israel, Iraq, Thailand, Pakistan, Philippines, Algeria, Mauritania, Nigeria, Indonesia, Yemen, Russia, Ingushetia, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Qatar, Bangladesh, Dagestan, Kuwait, Jordan, Netherlands, United States, United Kingdom.)

Accommodation and understanding isn’t the goal of the jihadists, their stated goal is the submission of all with the sole worthy alternative for those who fail to do so being death – be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

Apologies for the long screed, and I know many will disagree and I respect their view, but never let there be any doubt who the “bad guys” are in this struggle. I have lost friends and loved ones to radical Islamist terror. Tony Blair and George Bush are at the bottom of the list when it comes to blaming those responsible for such treacherous acts.