IF the A330 is so much heavier than the KC-10 but carries less fuel what is this extra weight taking up by on the A330?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfcem
The KC-30 OTOH is BIGGER & HEAVIER than the KC-10 but 110,000 lbs short of the KC-10 in fuel capacity. It is a large tanker without large tanker fuel capacity.

I just found this information sheet on Tigercat. It was on a Falklands war website. Did the Argentina use the tigercat system or did the British?

Jason Simmonds posted at #69 that
First and only international customer for ASRAAM. (Australia)

I thought India had bought this aswell. I’m not to sure about other countries but as new fighters get bought i think it will gain more sales due to some countries not being allowed newer versions of AMRAM. ASRAAM is a very good missile and would be just as hard to get away from as other AAM’s. The Long range it has is a big advantage. Also expect upgrades to make it even better. During CAMM development gets going alot of modifications will be learned as some incorporated into ASRAAM. We will be looking at an ASRAAM mark 2. The hard thing with selling this missile is Americans have a complete monopoly with alot of countries and if they want F-16’s they have to take side winder. Alot of other countries under American influence also have trouble getting anything but Sidewinder. They just don’t have the choice. I think more eurofighters and F-35’s sell we will see more ASRAAM mark 2’s getting sold. Expect countries like Oman to to buy ASRAAM

The BAE Hawk carrying what is impressive for a little trainer aircraft. If anyone has any better pictures of the Hawk please post them. I would love to see ones with the variety of weapons that are displayed in the picture with weapons laid out in front of the hawk. Can’t find a picture of it carrying maverick or rocket pods.

FOe the F-16-XL is there any reason why it has all the bombs in this layout? It seems odd from what other aircraft would do. I still think the USAF made the correct desision picking the F15E instead of this. Anyone got more pictures of this F-16? perhaps with different loads or weapon positions?

What aircraft are the UAE using Black shaheen missile on just now? Did they have to pay for integration? Does anyone have any real figures for the range of the missile? It’s stated as having over 150 miles. When thinking about this is there not a limit on the range of cruise missile with some policy thing or is this just for the US and Russia. Does the UAE missile have any variations from the standard missile oe how many they bought? Does this missile require approval from the UK and France for export or just the country doing the deal? I take it the UAE are a close reliable country to export the latest missile for the UK and French airforces.

Anyone have any pictures of the black Shaheen on a UAE aircraft? Above someone siad they want to have the ability to carry 3 missiles on 1 Rafale. whether this is possible is another matter. Would there ever be situation where they would need to launch 3 missiles from 1 aircraft instead of 2. Here is the Rafale carrying 2 missiles and 3 drop tanks so you probably could swap this around but i think the weight may have an adverse effect of the aircraft. Then again the point of the missile is that you don’t need to enter a combat situation and can fire from far away.
The weight of 1 missile is about 1,300 kilograms (2,866 lb) so three would add alot of weight. Add in a couple of drop tanks and AAM’s and this is alot. Then again the point of the missile is that you don’t need to enter a combat situation and can fire from far away.

The KC-30 fuel load is with it’s standard tanks only. It has the capability to install fuselage tanks if needed and has the spare engine power to do this. There is also most likely going to be upgrades (increases in power on the engines and since the civilian version is still in high demand we may well see an updated version with more powerful engines and modifications to allow it to carry more weight and fuel. For a tanker version this will allow it to have more offload and longer range. This is not a requirement at the moment as it already carries a lot of fuel. For KC-Y i had seen a proposal to take away some of the cargo carrying ability and install fuselage tanks that would be able to be taken in and out. (not quickly though if i remember) Can’t think of figures but i think it offered a lot of extra fuel. This would allow just 1 aircraft to be bought for all three sections KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z. Whether this happens is anyone’s guess. Originally KC-X was described as a purchase of 540 aircraft presumably of the same type. Now we seem to have KC-X, KC-Y and KC-Z. Maybe the US would be better waiting a few more years and seeing how the A330 and 767 do in the tanker/transport role. Also this would allow the freighter version of A330 to be ready, the A350 and the 787. This could leave the USAF with a bigger selection of aircraft to pick from.
In the end it’s a complete mystery as to who will win the KC-X. Maybe one day we will find out. I am currently 55% to 45% in favour of the Airbus being picked again.

Former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove attacks Government over funding of Afghan campaign

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, has launched an attack on the Government for its financing and handling of the military campaign in Afghanistan.

Sir Richard, who was chief of the Secret Intelligence Service when British troops were first sent into Afghanistan in 2001, said the Treasury had squeezed the defence budget over a number of years.

And he said the Government had failed adequately to explain to the public why Britain was at war.

Sir Richard’s comments came in a Gresham College lecture in London, in which he told an audience of academics that “the question of why we are at war with the Taliban is one of national security”.

“Our armed forces have been under-resourced. This is a basic fact from which there really is no escape,” Sir Richard said.

“The Treasury has been squeezing the defence budget for approximately eight years.”

He also raised the issue of how Gordon Brown’s Government has handled public anger about the war and the rising toll of casualties. Two hundred and thirty five servicemen and women have lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2001.

Polls suggest increasing numbers of voters now want to see British troops withdrawn from Afghanistan within a year, prompting the Prime Minister followed by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to stress the purposes of the mission.

“Until recently, our political leadership has failed to explain satisfactorily why we are at war,” Sir Richard said. “Their advocacy of the policy has, I think, been half-hearted.

“Maybe now we see a change in that advocacy with a more confident position being taken. But the reason for change looks rather more like political damage limitation, than vigorous belief in the policy.”

Sir Richard, who was head of MI6 from 1999-2004 and is expected to give evidence to Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry, also warned the Government that it must deliver a strong message to its enemies to avoid the loss of more British troops’ lives.

“The Taliban, if they think we are wavering, will up the pressure and be encouraged to try to kill more of our soldiers,” he said.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “We have consistently increased funding for the mission in Afghanistan year by year in recent years.

“The Prime Minister and other Cabinet ministers continue to explain and make the case publicly for the mission.”

The spokesman said funding for the Afghan mission had risen from £750 million in 2006/07 to £1.5 billion in 2007/08, £2.5 billion in 2008/09 and £3.5 billion in 2009/10.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6657029/Former-MI6-head-Sir-Richard-Dearlove-attacks-Government-over-funding-of-Afghan-campaign.html

Finally someone sticking up for defence. The UK has nothing left to cut. The armed forces are running on minimum and if much more goes the UK will have to withdraw from the world stage. It’s like the government just ignores the fact the all countries are expanding there forces especially in the middle and Far east. The navies are getting bigger and more open ocean ability. If the UK has to ever protect its shipping because of a regional conflict god help us because the UK will be going hungry. The navy needs to expand and the airforce needs to get out of it’s cold war setup and start getting some long range planes and support the aircraft carriers. more MPA and UCAV’s and maybe a long range bomber or more tanking assets and and Tornado replacement.
For having such a big spending on defence the UK doesn’t half mess up what it does with the money. It either needs a big injection of cash for the next few years to clear the back log of expensive items and start again and try not to mess it up, or a big reduction on what purchased and the size of the armed forces. Maybe some of the older poster’s can tell us if this situation we are in just now is what it has always been like or if it’s just something the Labour government has managed to create all on there own. The current policy of cutting everything and trying to buy expensive items without putting the cash up that is needed.