Excuse my what I hope isn’t stating the obvious too much, but given that the report says that most of the tanking work being done is Recovery work around the Carrier, then why does it have to be a stealth UCLASS design. Use the UCLASS for what it’s intended Surveillance and strike, don’t try and make it something it’s not.

I can understand the un-manned aspect but surely it just has to be a big gas can flying it’s own orbit, around the carrier.

It’s not as if we are talking about stealthy tanking over occupied territory…. or is it ?

Well…. I suppose there is a future in privately funded fast jets if any company is realises the majority of countries around the world need nothing more than:

(1) Something capable of air policing
(2) Something capable of COIN

With (2) being optional.

Therefore, you need.
(1) Supersonic dash capability.
(2) Basic fire control radar, incorporating A2A and A2G modes

You do not need:
(1) Network centric operations
(2) Supermaneuverability
(3) LO features
(4) Supercruise
(5) Advanced RWR/MAWS/ESM

More or less, an updated T-50. Best thing is, (1) and (5) are systems which could be fitted to variants offering clients the choice between capabilities.

If Boeing could develop that as a single seat version of the back of a proposal for the new trainer for the USAF, it would minimise the amount of self funding required …all they would have to do is win the trainer contract 🙂

Something like a Coast Guard owned (privately operated like their Helicopters) CN235 or C295 would do the same thing a lot cheaper.

I’d just like to add my thanks and for your fabulous efforts in bringing History to a Modern Landscape.
The comparison between now and then, is stunning , in both what has survived, what has been resurrected in the original style and also where the new sits side by side with buildings that still show bullet damage.
More power to your research and your camera.

I was confused on reading this the first time, and comments above seem to show I was right to be confused.

Given the WAH64’s have different Engines and mechanical bits, defensive kit and don’t mind getting a bit wet.

Is it really more a case of the LongBow system development that the UK wants or needs, after all I’m sure I assume if asked RR could squeeze more power and fuel efficiency out of the RTM332s, with upgrades elsewhere without relying on Boeing.

sadly a PShop

There is a cable passing through the tail of the aircraft,

I think perhaps we call this a false start.

I haven’t seen a Scotsman today but this will be the place to keep an eye on…

http://worldfestivalofflight.com/index.html