European Union has 2 Battle groups ready every six months in order to be able to send them to war zones or crisis 600 metric miles from Brusselles. From 1st of january it’s gonna be a swedish (or nordic) and a spanish battle group operative.

Please enlighten me; why would these countries need a C-17 if what EU wants to do is to send a 2500 man battle group with light AFV to Chad in Africa, for one example? They operate Hercules today and intends to solve these missions with 4 Hercules.

Cliff

If they think they are going to be sustaining a force of 2500 men along with light armored vehicles in Chad with Herciles then they are living in cloud cuckoo land, that is the reason why Europeans find them selves renting Russian and American cargo capacity and why the likes of the UK and Australia have bought the C-17.

The RAF lost out just as much as the RN did, in some ways even more so- who is it who now provides the nuclear deterrent?

I think the Nuclear deterrent has proved to be a millstone for whichever service has to provide it; many writers have commented that the ’66 review was really down to the fact that the RN could have either Polaris or CVA-01, but not both. Whatever the truth, I would have been happy yo leave the deterrent role with the RAF if it meant we kept the carriers and the FAA intact.

Prior to 1982 the Nuclear role was the only game in town. The Knott defence review may be hated and despised almost universally now, but at the time it was not that out of line. Effectively the only role in town, the Knott defence review orientated the navy around that with a fairly large number of submarines, to hunt other submarines, and a smaller surface force of ASW ships to also hunt submarines. The idea that the RN was going to have a long term campaign escorting convoys across the Atlantic was a ridiculous notion . For the role given to the RN the Knott defence review was not unreasonable, it only became so becouse of the Falklands and then then the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it is imperative to remember that prior to that the RN’s near sole function was to prepare to fight the SU.

Yes but not too many countries want to pay $ 250 mil for a C-17 do they? A-400M at $ 140 mil is not cheap but more affordable.

We will wait and see if the A-400M really comes out at that price.;)

If they can get the A-400M out in a year or so it certainly has more export potential that C-17.Why would anyone want to kill it for C-17??

Becouse the C-17 is a true strategic air lifter which to be perfectly frank is what most European countries are actually looking for.

Perhaps, but they still lost out to an aggresive RAF, who then couldn’t deliver anyway.
To be fair, even when “Stalin’s follies” became evident and the cold war was in full swing, ministers hardly improved things did they?

The RAF lost out just as much as the RN did, in some ways even more so- who is it who now provides the nuclear deterrent?

As for “Stalins follies” had Stalin have not died and the plans followed through they may not have been follies. The sverdlovs certainly scared the hell out of the RN.

This is going to be between Gripen and Rafale

Source? Becouse based on the last time this contest was run that was very much not the case. Although I would love to see the Gripen-NG get an order here, thinking about that aircraft might be a good option.

Yep…

Is this the combat capable version with the Osa radar?:confused:

man you contradict your self first you say TsAGi was involved throught recomendations and later you say it has nothing to do, do not put words in my mouth, TsAGI did gave a basic aerodynamic model and this was developed individually by Sukhoi and MiG, as aircraft both were designed by their respective design bureaus but undoutedly there is a TsAGI link between the MiG-29 and Su-27

Ken is not contradicting himself at all. All he is doing is pointing out that you are talking utter rubbish and humiliating yourself.:rolleyes:

Welcome to flogger land everybody.:D