Maybe this is an offhand indicator that the PLA isn’t bothering with the JF-17? With hundreds of J-10s in the pipeline and the J-11B and XXJ programs progressing to varying degrees, there really is no need for an inferior platform like the JF-17. Look at how clean the logistical trail can be with the above three types, especially when you consider that the days of AL-31FN powered J-10s appear to be over. Adding the JF-17 throws another powerplant type into the mix, and where would you use it anyway? Taiwan? Better to have more capable and advanced BVR shooters like the J-11B and J-10 handling the strait. Far West to act as deterrence to India? See previous comment. For point defence? No, that’s an increasingly less important mission with the deployment of advanced SAM batteries and a waste of resources anyway. Ignore the JF-17, give the display team “older” J-10s with AL-31FN engines after reequipping their units with new jets with WS10s, and move on.

Something that I have predicted for a while, remember the JF-17 is not just being squeezed from the fighter side but also from the A2G side with procurement of the JH-7A apparently ongoing and the Z-10 attack helo both providing valid replacements for the Q-5. Frankly I see little hope for the JF-17 in the PLAAF or the PLANAF.

It’s still a capability unheard of in Europe since the days of the V-Bombers and possibly beyond that mark in terms of range at least.

The more I think about it, I get the impression that the UK at least does not consider strategic reach an incidental byproduct of long endurance. I mean, BAE dropped the word ‘strategic’ in the press release when they announced Corax, the project that gave rise to Taranis is called SUAVE (Strategic Unmanned Air Vehicle Experiment) – the programme’s got strategic written all over it! They’re not even trying to hide the fact, really.

Which is why I suspect that the RAF/MoD has so much support for UK UCAV projects, it is the only way on the horizon that the RAF will be able to claw back some of its strategic capability from the RN which currently (and rightfully) posesses practically all of it.

More images. Same advice applies to some of them. 4 x GBU-12 + 6 Brimstone – how much does that lot weigh? 1500 kg including racks?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25675832/displaymode/1176/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25675859/displaymode/1176/
Full view – Includes people – very good for scale.

That is certainly an impressive weapons load and I would be intrigued to see the performance figures for such a configuration. I would add to some previous sentiments expressed here that the UK seems to be taking an effective approach towards UAV/UCAV development.

Something else here:
VMF back at Svalbard.

http://www.kommersant.com/p-12826/Spitsbergen_combat_vessels/

I wonder how an Udaloy all season long goes together with the de-militarization of Svalbard according to the Svalbard Treaty of 1920.
(Also wonder how the dirt slinger on that picture goes together with Article 2 of that treaty …)

There is a bit of history to this, Norway and Russia have had a few maritime issues lately involving fishermen, cargo vessels and coastguards. The Russians said that they were going to do this a while back and they are keeping their word. One does however have to wonder at the utility of using an ASW DDG and an AShM cruiser for what are minor non-combat paltry disputesque issues. It does rather suggest that the Russian Navy is ill-equipped for the tasks for which it is required these days.

The QinetiQ website has a computer generated image of the Mantis, link below, if you download the image you get the whole article but it is bigger.

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2008/3rd_quarter/QinetiQ_supports_Mantis_UAS_demonstrator_programme.html

The fact that the Reaper is already in service with the RAF rather suggests that BAe may have missed the boat on this one unless the UK is looking for a higher level of operational independance than is currently offered by the Reaper. UCAV and stealth technology is one of the areas in which the UK government has commited heavily in recent years. I can see two major reasons why, as an emergent technology it defers any need for an expensive procurement into the distant future and the MoD seems to regard it as the future.

It’s interesting watching the volleys fly back and forth. This statement seems, at best, a bit heated and somewhat inaccurate. Even Flight International, certainly not a, “give it all to Boeing”, magazine has stated that the GAO overturn of the award had nothing to do with protectionism. Although there was much pious bleating from Congressmen from both camps, it really wasn’t necessary or a factor.

What GAO said to USAF was that if the original solicitation met your needs, then go back and evaluate the offerings to that solicitation in accordance with the criteria you yourself set up. If you now think the original solicitation does not meet your needs, then issue a new one that does and evaluate those proposals, but follow the rules that you yourself set up. It appears the latter course is what’s being followed.

The flaws in the award (not the plane) were not simple “technical minutae of the rule book”, according to GAO. USAF admits it did the cost analysis wrong. The winning contractor admits that they intentionally would not commit to the major requirement for organic maintenance. Their first response to the speed issue was to tell USAF to change its criteria to what their plane could do, and then USAF sort of just punted on this issue. Either of the latter two woud be enough to stop the competition in its tracks, let alone make an award, and there were other big problems as well. Keep in mind, GAO only agreed with a very small portion of Boeing’s claims about improper analysis and award, but those it did agree with were really major.

If you expect companies to be willing to spend big bucks on preparing and submitting bids for USAF requirements, or even bothering to respond at all, they have to know that they’ve got a fair chance at winning. They’ve got to know, in preparing their proposal, what it is the Government wants and how it’ll determine who best meets that requirement. You can’t just go, “Hey everyone! We want some planes that may or may not be supposed to do what we’re telling you here. Go out and spend hundreds of millions of dollars of your money to get back to us and we promise that this is how we’ll evaluate what you send us to determine which is the best product to meet this need, unless we don’t want to. In that case we’ll just do whatever we feel like”. Why would any company in its right mind bid on something like that? But that’s apparently what USAF did. The KC-45, in light of later knowledge may indeed have been the best plane for what USAF now thinks it needs, but it is not what they said they wanted when they asked industry for proposals, and that’s really the nub of the issue.

Minutae………………..all that needs to be said.