A fair few Transformers are proper jets, the most prominent being the 3 original Decepticonm F-15’s – Starscream, Thudercracker, Skywarp. Then there’s the modified F-15’s – Dirge, Ramjet and Thrust. Others include Needlenose (an F-16XL) and Blitzwing (not sure what his aircraft is).

Then there’s the Autobot jets – the aerialbots (F-4/-15/-16, AV-8 and a Concorde) and Powerglide (A-10).

So I am wondering if any of these will be making an appearance.

I love ugly aircraft and the Hind A is freaking ugly! So ugly it’s beautiful…

My question is why is Western policy so lenient towards Turkey? I understand during the Cold War that Turkey was a major player in containing the USSR, but the USSR is no more. Furthermore the 2003 invasion of Iraq made Turkey totally redundant in US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Iraq gives the US a very central operating base for operations against any Middle Eastern country. Furthermore the Turks refused to allow the US to utilise US bases in Turkey for the invasion (a fair enough call) but this does mean that Turkey’s status as a reliable US ally has been put in doubt. Iraq on the other hand is a US puppet state…

it has happend before in history… though not in a helicopter…. religion is the main reason why a lot of countrys need a airforce… and use them….

I like my idea of “Pope gone Nam-tastic.”

“And this one’s for J.C.!”

DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!

(He’s firing short bursts cause he knows that is more accurate).

I actually think the most useless airforces are most of the European ones.

They generally only exist to provide the illusion that NATO is a coherent organisation not dominated by the US. So what if Denmark deploys 4 F-16’s? Even when taking into account other NATO countries, their deployments are generally symbolic at best. If Belgium, the Netherlands, Dnemark, Norway and Portugal each provided 4 F-16’s, it would still only be a mere 20 F-16’s, some of which are only really good for point defence anyway.

The new Eastern European NATO partners are even more pathetic. They generally operate a single squadron of fighters because NATO requires them to be able to guard their airspace and then operate a bunch of helicopters and transports whose main purpose is to be deployed in a variety of US led operations overseas.

And the irony is that the eastern flank of NATO is rather poorly defended from its old enemy, Russia. Russia may be a capitalist and generally democratic country these days but it still is not exactly a friend. And then there’s the borderline dictatorship of Lukashenko in Belorussia which is not exactly friendly to NATO interests either.

I am not saying that the Ruskis are going to invade the West anytime soon, but one would think the West would still maintain some forces in this area.

But then the entire idea of a unified European defence strategy is also a joke and the little they have relies on the Americans for many functions (e.g. most SEAD, heavylift transport).

I can imagine what would happen to a A400 landing in Afghanistan

Not much because the A400 is a figment of some bureaucratic committee’s imagination.

But the A400 is cheap alternative to a C-130 or even An-2 Colt. As it doesn’t exist anywhere other than in glossy Airbus pamphlets you can field thousands of them with the only cost being a rubber band to hold them together and some space in your stationnary cupboard. 😀

Nice photos.

The question now arises is where are the units from Monte Negro going to be relocated?

Given that the Orao fleet is from what I understand nearly grounded, would Ladjevci AB be a likely candidate?

Do not forget the Dutch: the Royal Netherlands Air Force studies to acquire two C-17s. 🙂

Didn’t they opt to acquire a couple of ex-USN Hercs to replace existing Fokkers as well as an additional DC-10 for increased strategic mobility?