I don’t wish to be rude, but that’s rather far-fetched.

The idea that the Swedes would have been complicit in providing nuclear capable Viggens to Sweden is risible, in my view. Quite apart from the ‘moral scruples’ that undermined so many Swedish attempts to export advanced combat aircraft at that time, I do not believe that the Indian Viggen prospect ever got far enough to justify the expense of that kind of development – certainly it always seemed certain that the IAF had decided that India’s strike requirements would be filled by a mix of high-end Jaguar and low-end ‘Flogger’, even if it might take years for the Politicians to sign on the dotted line!

Much more likely is that the capability was worked up for the Flygvapen itself. Requirements inevitably evolve and develop even while an aircraft is in service, and during the 1970s, it was becoming increasingly clear to most leading air forces that the exponential growth in capability of LL SAMs, AAA and Manpads meant that existing weapons and tactics against high value targets like airfields were no longer viable, and conventional toss bombing became fashionable, if not de rigeur. (This was facillitated by technological development – since in previous times, the accuracy of toss bombing was such that it was effectively a nuclear technique!)

The ‘fact’ that Entropy’s US chum only saw two Viggens with this capability is unreliable – as far as any of us know, the capability may have been developed and fielded, or the aircraft may have been development/evaluation jets for a capability that went no further – or even that was intended for a different, export customer, perhaps even on another Saab type (Denmark’s Drakens). In the latter case, using Viggens would perhaps allow development to be undertaken on the air force’s leading air-to-ground platform, since Sweden’s Drakens and their pilots were primarily air-to-air roled.

Alternatively, there may have been a toss bombing element in the ‘Eurofighter’ requirement eventually won by the F-16, but for which the Viggen was briefly in contention.

What did Jerry Rawlings fly before the coup that saw him become President?

IFR currency? Instrument Flight Rules – I think they do plenty of Instrument Flying…. it’s AAR currency that is lacking!

Nice to hear such positive views. It has to be said that anyone who likes the publication would be doing its future a great deal of good by subscribing directly, rather than by buying ad hoc issues from bookstores, or via Midland Counties, or whatever.

I don’t think that European technology or platforms are always superior – but sometimes they are, and in a number of high profile recent US procurements, the European option has been the best.

And in this case the European platform is a better tanker/transport. Airbus ‘spanks’ Boeing in this case, if you need it in language you’ll understand.

Some cold, hard, verifiable facts to back up the argument that KC-30 ‘spanks’ KC-767.

1) The KC-767 can’t cope with short runways (due to braking limitations).
2) The KC-767 has much less fuel to offload.
3) The KC-767 has a fuselage cross section that doesn’t permit side-by-side carriage of standard pallets.
4) The KC-767 doesn’t enjoy the advantages conferred by FBW.
5) The KC-767 has experienced flutter and drag problems with the wing pods, and the solution is ‘draggy’.

(EG: runway length isn’t the only factor I’m quoting, Bager).

Boeing marketeers have made a big deal about surface loading, but the UK FSTA evaluation (which included all existing VC10 and TriStar bases and FOLs) showed that it was simply not a factor.

“The accusation that the A330 is too heavy for airfield surfaces ….. was explicitely contradicted by the FSTA IPT leader before the A330 was selected. He did so several times, on the record. RAF officers who evaluated the aircraft quite specifically said that there were no UK aerodromes or regular UK tanker op locations that were unavailable to the A330 MRTT, fully loaded, but said that several airfields were not available to the 767 on grounds of runway length.”

(That’s why runway length is more often a more important factor than surface, Bager, old chap).

Some substance:

“On a typical towline task, operating from a representative 10,000-ft runway, on a typical four hour sortie (with one hour’s fuel for diversions/reserve), the KC-767 has just 50,000 kg to give away to receivers, or 64,800 kg given an unlimited runway. By contrast, the the A310MRTT has 45,500 kg of fuel available to offload (but can offer 5,700 kg more if a fifth ACT is fitted), and the A330MRTT has 82,500 kg.”

If true, this might be annoying and might be slightly limiting in some circumstances, but I’d be astonished if such a problem proved insoluble or significant in the longer term.

Every aircraft programme has problems of this kind, and Rafale is still a relatively immature jet.

There is both rabidly anti-French and rabidly pro-French propaganda in the UK media – and a thick vein of humour that teases the French because, as the French are among our oldest friends, that’s what we do.

I’m pleased to see you disassociate yourself from Foofoone’s comments, Nic. Happy Christmas!