Has anyone got any progress on CVF to report?

I have been reading about CVN USS Gerald Ford and it has a new reactor to provide the extra power needed to power the EMALS. The Nimitz class cannot be refitted with EMALS as the cannot generate enough power for them. This got me thinking about CVF and whether it has enough spare power production capacity to power to EMALS and modern arrestor gear. (i don’t know if arrestor gear uses electricity) The CVF design has the upgrade potential built into it for catapults and arrestor gear but would it require some kind of extra power generation turbine or does the current units have enough spare capacity? Maybe the design has been built for steam catapults only i don’t know. I don’t know how much power the current EMALS require but seeing as Nimitz class can’t use them i guess it’s alot. Maybe in the future EMALS will be developed to require less electricity to operate?
Has the French design of CVF been built to be able to use EMALS? I thought it was going to be built with pretty much the same engines as CVF and operate steam catapults.

This got me thinking about the arrestor gear and the forces that must be put through it when an aircraft hooks on. Wouldn’t be fantastic if the energy absorbed from an aircraft landing could be turned into electricity and stored and be enough to power an EMAL for take off. Probably not possible but i think that if you could harness the energy of the arrested landing and turn it into electricity it would be a substantial amount. While looking into the arrestor gear on USS Gerald Ford CVN-78 it is new and will operate by using electromagnets to stop the aircraft instead of the current hydraulic system. The Advanced Arrestor Gear (AAG) seems like it would be easier to generate electrical power from it. In defence it often feels as if Britian its technological ability and numbers of ships slip through its fingers. Dr StrangeLove the former head of MI6 was on the radio saying how the current government has really stretched the UK in defence matter like budget etc. I’m finally glad someone is standing up for defence.

Hawker Hunters of the Lebanese Air Force today.
Photos by Vatche Mitilian.

When looking at the picture of the 3 aircraft it looks as if the 1st aircraft has a much bigger hump that feeds straight of the back of the canopy while the other 2 seem to have a bit of a bubble canopy. Can anyone explain this? Is this some kind of upgraded Hunter?
Also does anyone know where they got there Hunter’s from. I believe they have 5 active? Were these originally bought brand new from the UK or are the second hand from another country? It’s great to see such a good aircraft still flying. It just shows for most ground attack missions you don’t need some fancy aircraft and you can use something much cheaper. The Nato air forces could do with taking a lesson from this. I’m not saying for example the UK gets rid of it’s Tornado’s but it could just as easily operate a much cheaper aircraft with the necessary equipment in Afghanistan.

Can anyone tell me what the difference between the Hercules C3 and C3A is? I always get this muddled up is the C3 the short or long version?
While on this subject anyone know what all the different tanker marks are for? We have the 3 types for VC-10 and the 3 types for Tri stars. I thought i read somewhere that only 5 of the Tristars are tankers? are the C2 transports only? Is there any meaning to the different letters or numbers associated with these planes?

Does the INS Viraat have a well dock? When it was with the Royal navy i thought i carried 4 LCVP in a dock? As far as i know it still can be used as a commando carrier in the IN. Any pictures of the dock or inside?

some politician trying to make up stories again. If he and Boeing are so confident in there product and that the 767 is the correct plane for the job then they shouldn’t have to resort to crazy tactics. Personally i like the A330 but it is up to the USAF to decide what plane best meets their needs. That could be either, us member’s of the public trying to guess what the US airforce refueling and transport future needs are is pure guess work. The strategy of the US airforce could change over the next 50 years. One thing we have seen is that the US is finding it harder and harder to get basing rights near the battle field. Is this continues at its current rate in 50 years time to US will have no base rights in any country. This will involve longer flights and more refueling. Also it makes the navies carrier’s more important and USAF long range bomber’s more relevant.

The thing with subsidies is that the European governments aren’t just giving money to airbus. The money is normally loaned to Airbus to develop new aircraft and then as the aircraft sells Airbus repay the money that was loaned. Another way to look at it is that when Airbus developed it’s first aircraft the European countries governments that had stakes in Airbus paid for it’s development. This money was then paid back as the aircraft became a success. This same money that was loaned for the first aircraft has then been used to develop all the other aircraft. Thus if the big EU countries had just gave Airbus £5 billion for its first aircraft and not wanted it back Airbus could of used put away the money it would normally have paid back to the governments to develop the next aircraft. This in hindsight would probably of not caused so much controversy.
The government loans could also be seen as that Airbus was given money to start as a company and has paid money to the governments to keep for it’s next aircraft. This way Airbus is using the EU governments as a bank. Whether in the future Airbus will borrow money from the governments is yet to be seen.
Boeing gets it’s fare share of tax breaks and other benefits that Airbus doesn’t get so it’s all a bit swings and roundabouts. The only way to resolve this would be to have both companies paying the exact same tax wages outgoings etc. This will never happen as it’s to hard to do. All worldwide companies have advantages and disadvantages depending where they are based. This is how it goes and to say the A330 tanker should have some kind of $5 million penalty is just crazy.
The best thing Boeing could do just now is put every effort into getting the tankers it has on order’s with Italy, japan etc sorted out and fast. These are making Boeing look like they aren’t reliable and can’t make tankers anymore on budget and on time. The should also be doing this for any other military customer that is using a civilian airframe like P-8, AWACS etc
Same goes for Airbus and it’s A310 and A330 tankers. We don’t hear so much about big problems that are dragging on for years as much as Boeing but they still should be showing they can deliver tanker’s on time and if possible under budget. Also they should look at getting the A400 and any other planes sorted asap as this just makes them look bad.
All in all Northrop/Airbus appear to be having less problems with there tanker’s than Boeing. This may not be correct but if you read the press this is what you would think.

As far as i was aware these 179 tankers are the first batch out of 3. The plan was that all the 3 batches should be the same aircraft and this will make things simpler instead of running 2 aircraft. Some people now seem to be wanting a split buy to replace KC-135 and KC-10. This is an idea but it leaves the situation of that if the 767 doesn’t win the first round the production line will be shut down so it most likely won’t be available for KC-Y and Z. When thinking how long the whole tanker replacement program is going to run for i would be wanting an aircraft that has development potential. For this i would favour the A330. In another way if the USAF puts of renewal for 10 years or says it will be a new aircraft for KC-Y and Z then this leaves the door open for a new development or for the 787 and A350 to have a go. These aircraft could be well suited to the tanker mission depending on what is required. If the A330 is bought for KC-X then maybe for KC-Z it should be a smaller aircraft. By the time KC-Z is required the USAF should have a good knowledge of how the new tankers and strategy is working out and if it should go smaller, bigger or stay the same size.
When thinking about it will there be a smaller Airbus or Boeing product available? Their aircraft seem to be getting bigger and they are not replacing the smaller market planes.

When is a decision due on the tanker? The mandatory requirement jump is huge thing to go from 37 to over 300. Can either aircraft meet 300 odd requirement? If only 1 can then it’s not really a competition and if you have 300 odd mandatory requirements that 2 different aircraft pass then it doesn’t seem to be strict enough and will lead to the same situation as last time. The fact there aren’t going to be many bonus points and total number of requirements has gone from 800 to 373 in an attempt to simplify the process but that all these are mandatory i think will either lead to 1 aircraft pulling out and there being no competition or it won’t be possible to pick a winner cause both have done the same. Then it will be the same situation now where who ever wins will get taken to court and the competition winner will be overturned.
How i see it though is the USAF picked the A330 as the aircraft it wanted and thought was the best. Why would this change in a few years to favour the other aircraft?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4384702&c=AIR&s=TOP

Germany To Cut Eurofighter Order, Seek Exports

By THOMAS NEWDICK

Published: 19 Nov 2009 12:45

BERLIN – Germany’s coalition government has confirmed that the Luftwaffe will not receive its final batch of Eurofighters. To date, Germany has firmly committed to 143 aircraft; now Tranche 3B, covering the final 37 jets originally planned for the Luftwaffe, will instead be made available for export.

Faced with penalties for non-acceptance of the 37 remaining aircraft, the German government has decided to put these Eurofighters up for sale, under an agreement issued by the new coalition government. The decision may appease Eurofighter officials, since there will be no reduction in the original 180-aircraft German order.

Can we take this story as true or just rumour? The germans will be lucky to find someone who wants to buy 37 eurofighter’s for full price when the customer know’s that if the germans don’t sell them they will just be going to the scrap yard.. When is Tranche 3B going to be finished 2015+? Maybe the germans can tie the 37 into a bigger order if they get one.
A better idea for germany would be to sell 30 odd of the tranche 1 or 2 aircraft second hand to some country cheaply and then keep the tranche 3 aircraft for themselves. This way you have more chance of someone buying them if they are cheap and it looks good on the market that another 30 odd eurofighters have been sold. Maybe Romania or some other airforce that needs new planes soon but really can’t afford brand new ones.
IF this story is true it is a shame. I hope this doesn’t make the other countires think about selling tranche 3B? This could fill a potential indian or japanese order.