True, it’s a pity that a little thing like money got in the way of the idea.
It is a shame how such things crop up.;)
With the Tornado having air to air refueling capability surely that means it has long range capability?
I think what he means is would you want to be refueling your Tornado several times on on its way through Soviet air space to Moscow. However I see where you are coming from, by the 80s there was realy no financialy viable role for big bombers in the RAF. The RN had the nuclear deterrent and the Tornado should be capable of handling 99% of theatre roles. BTW, the storm shadow currently carried by the Tornado (of which it can theoretically carry four and usualy carries two) should easily out range the Blue Steel of the V-force.
Obviously that nice fantasy land where the RAF strike force in the 1960/70s would consist of supersonic Harriers (P1154) for tactical missions, TSR2’s for theatre missions and Avro-730’s for strategic missions is a nice place to imagine.;)
Just a little more detail on the two efforts to replace/add to the Vulcan.
Avro-730: One prototype was in the early stages of construction in 1957 when it was cancelled in the Sandys defence white paper of that year. It was due to fly in 1959 and the last of eight prototypes was to fly in 1961/62 (it was 1960-62 that the RAF expected its ‘Bomber Gap’ to appear). No photos relating to the Avro-730 have ever surfaced, the same goes for the other contenders, a full scale mock-up was made of the Handley Page HP-100 offer but again no photos have appeared (to my knowledge at least) suggesting that there was a very high degree of secrecy related to the project.
Avro Vulcan Phase-6: A larger twin crewed Vulcan intended to carry up to 6 Skybolts, it never made it of the drawing board.
NMD interceptor missile numbers are increasing at the same time the number of Russian ICBM missiles is decreasing. The larger number of NMD missiles there are will increase the limit the of lowest number of missiles the Russians will be happy with. For any rogue state today an ICBM is a very expensive, relatively unreliable (ie even the Russians and US today don’t have ICBMs that you could say more than 95% will work as advertised, the number for Iran or NK will be drastically lower than this) method of attack that is actually very simple to detect and determine who the bad guy is. A nuke buried inside a shipping container that has travelled to hundreds of ports and then enters a US port and explodes is much cheaper and simpler. Add a simple cheap turbojet engine as used today in modern UAVs with wings and you have a budget cruise missile that would stretch the US’s air defence network even if they suspected it might be coming. An ICBM is useful for retaliation… a stick to prevent attacks happening in the first place the the counter attack makes the use of such weapons self defeating.
Sorry Garry but all that is irrelevent, the NMD system (by Russias own bragging) can be penetrated by the latest Russian ICBMs. It is also highly unlikely that there will ever be enough interceptors to stop an all out Russian strike.
You have nothing to do with North Korean or Iranian defence policy so how would you know how many missiles they are going to deploy?:rolleyes:
There is a “run-run” abouth the re-birth of development of Russian super(hyper?)sonic cruise missiles. Is that likely?
One of the problems would be a lack of suitable launch vehicles. The Tu-160M that was intended to carry 2 Koalas in its bomb bay was never built. The Tu-95s could be adapted to carry them but they must be getting long in the tooth by name and either way the types slow speed and massive signature make it less than perfect. As far as I am aware the Tu-22s would be too small to carry them although it may be possible to heavily modify them to carry one. That only realy leaves the 15 Tu-160’s which could potentially maybe carry one in the bomb bay.
A while back there was a report that the RuAF was pursuing a new strategic bomber (although such comments come out of Russia fairly reguarly the current modernisation of the Russian armed forces makes the idea not inconcievable), It may be that any new bomber has such weapons in mind.:confused:
There are only three problems with this-
Overreliance on Russia
High operational costs
The IAFs low-medium-heavy planIt was also mentioned that HAL was in talks with SAGEM for FLIR, perhaps to replace the current OLS for the future.
Pit mentioned this on BR while discussing with JC ,Sumeet, George J.
If the IAF ends up getting the Mig-35 then the overreliance issue remains, Likely so will the high operational costs. The low-medium-heavy plan seems somewhat unconvincing. A fleet/capabilitys based aproach might be better rather than trying to fit to the ‘plan’.
It was just a NASA demonstrator for tailless fighters. It is/was not the aircraft picture above. Notice the differences in the wings.;)
I think it was one of the contenders for JSF, or really the basis for a contender. Supposedly the USAF prefered it, but it didn’t meet the STOVL requirement for the B version.
That was the hideously ugly Boeing basking shark entry, not this aircraft. This was just a stealth demonstrator.
It’s a “B” as You can identfy on the black radome with its stipes !
But ……. posted at CDF by Xinhui a white J-10 prototype 03 and the exhaust doesn’t look like an AL-31FN one !!! ????
Thanks Deino, I assume its one of the four prototypes?:confused:
As for the J-10, could it be the WS-10A? The type has been in production for some time and at a supposedly very rapid rate so they should be running out of Russian engines by now.:confused:
Well its certainly a Flanker.:confused:
This is from Rosoboronexport news
Надо заметить, что в прессе сообщалось о целом ряде практически согласованных с Китаем контрактов: на поставку корабельных истребителей Су-33 для будущего китайского авианосца (до 48 самолетов на сумму до $2,5 млрд
which means it has been publish by the media the delivery of carrier-based fighters Su-33 for the future Chinese aircraft carrier (to 48 aircraft for the sum to $2,5 billion)
Одновременно в 1998-2005 годах на заводе в Шэньяне по российской лицензии и в основном из российских комплектующих было собрано еще 105 Су-27СК.
Simultaneously from 1998-2005 at the plant in Shengyang in accordance with the Russian license granted to China, 105 Su-27SK were assembled
http://roe.ru/roe_ru/news/lenty/lent_07_03_14.html
So far sems like China still wants sukhois from Russia
That does not have anything to do with what you are supposedly discussing!
You do know what an Su-33 is and why it is different from an Su-27 right?:rolleyes: Becouse you are rapidly starting to look like a troll.:mad:
Good luck in finding out 🙂
Thats your job. YOU made the claim, YOU need to provide a source.:mad:
sealordlawrence – for future reference you will find that if you type in Flight international into Google. Then type what you are looking for into their search engine its comes up quickly and easily. :).
DATE:20/04/07
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
Israel in talks with USA over F-22 orders
By Arie EgoziIsrael has approached the USA about acquiring Lockheed Martin F-22s as concern mounts about new threats to the country’s regional air superiority.
Sources say that the issue was raised during a one-day trip by US defence secretary Robert Gates to Israel last week.
Washington has so far not authorised the export of the Raptor stealth fighter, but sources in Israel say this is the first time a “reasonable” request has been made.
Among the subjects discussed with the country’s prime minister and defence minister were Israel’s concerns about the USA’s possible sale of advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the Israeli intelligence assessment of the Iranian nuclear programme.
For future reference, if you make a claim you need to provide a source.:mad:
The above says nothing about a formal request for 60 aircraft, just that Israel briefly raised the subject during a one day meeting.:rolleyes:
That’s of no use if he gets a 9mm in the back of the head.
Unicorn
Which is alot more likely as any charges would be spying orientated.
search haaretz
Nothing there, if you have a source post it.