Indeed. wont be long before they are cut, and all the savings made to keep them will be for nothing
Sigh… the current government tried to cut at least one… and found that the contracts were written so that it would cost the government just as much in penalties, mandated “replacement work”, etc to cut one (or both) as it would to simply complete both.
Completing both also keeps a lot of people employed (thus saving the expense of welfare for them), and returns some of those wages to the government as taxes.
Therefore, they both WILL be completed.
Once they are completed, then we will see if either actually enters service. That is the danger point.
However, that is some 8 years away for QE and 10 years away for POW… a lot can change in that time.
Comments I have read imply that Sentinel R1 was always considered an interim capability, to be replaced later by something better.
It simply seems that there will now be a gap (shock, surprise…. NOT) between R1 and that as-yet-to-be-defined “something better”.
Hmmm one F35 squadron…
I see future battles between the RAF and Navy.
One RAF squadron.
The current stated plan (caution… may change at any time without prior warning) is for a joint RAF/RN OCU (training) squadron and a RN squadron as well.
In modern large-aircraft production facilities, aircraft don’t get parked outside until completed… and they are test-flown and then flown off to their buyer in short order.
Unlike in WW2, there simply aren’t many parked outside at any given time.
Ah, yes… good old “silver certificates”.
When the government based the value of money on the value of silver in the metals market, not on hopes, wishes, and promises.
Boeing might have won the last round if they had gone for the “single profit” billing model, instead of allowing each subdivision of Boeing to plan to bill at a profit for components and work being supplied to other divisions of Boeing (which then added their own profit to the bill they planned to charge the USAF).
This time around they lowered the overall contract cost by setting up a “single profit” model, where there would only be the overall profit on the contract, which would then be split up between the divisions (reducing each division’s share of profit, by reducing the overall combined profit charged).
Interesting to see that some things don’t change, the smilling/laughing reporters rushing out of a briefing says it all about their priorities.
Yes, it does.
For 2 years, we had watched from the sidelines as Germany raped and ravaged Europe, killing mass numbers of our friends and relatives… but Congress said we had to be neutral.
For 10 years, we had watched as Japan pushed through Manchuria and north China, slaughtering tens or hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians… but Congress said we had to be neutral.
At last, Congress could no longer stand in our way… we were free to act, to come to the aid of our friends and relatives… to aid and protect the helpless Chinese.
We could finally do something to save the world from the madness it had fallen into.
Yes… many of us WERE happy!
I have spoken to my uncles on both sides of the family, who served in the war… and with both sets of grandparents, who watched their sons go off to war… and that was exactly how they described their feelings that day.
My mother’s father felt that way even though he had served (and been wounded) in France in WW1.
He had been angry with the US government for again sitting by while Germany ravaged France, and was proud to see his sons going off to do what he had done 24 years earlier.
Such “political” rules usually involved the F-14 NOT getting to blow the F-15s out of the sky with AIM-54 before the F-15 was even within maximum launch range of their AIM-7s.
Things like “starting distance for engagement is to be 25 NM”, “unassisted visual ID must be made before weapons are authorized”, etc.
A chief complaint, he said, was the Air Force’s decision to exclude as a factor in the competition a recent ruling by the World Trade Organization that Airbus received illegal subsidies from European governments.
But Thompson said Boeing may have a difficult time proving – for a second time – that the tanker competition was flawed.
Especially since the WTO later ruled that Boeing received illegal subsidies from the US government.
If EADS is disqualified or penalized on the subsidy issue, Boeing will be as well… meaning the issue is not worth protesting about.
She appears to have been heavily stripped, though… which shows why the “leave her in place” crowd would have caused her to cease existing in not too many more years.
Yep… and I could have “sanitized” the image info by running it through my photobucket page, but I really wasn’t trying for a big-time production.
I just thought this was sufficiently outlandish to bring into the light of day.
Although I really like Creaking Door‘s response.
Here’s the later, enlarged proposal… 6 Allison V-1710 engines!
Actually, that nose looks a lot like an Ablemarle nose.
Whiole the upper part of the nose looks rather B-25-ish, the lower party is slanted back at too sharp an angle for a B-25 nose… or any other US bomber.
Perhaps something takes from a British bomber?
Yes, Bager1968 but as is the case, the link I provided says :
“According to our informations, the accident of the Rafale M, sunday in the
Indian ocean, was the consequence of a fuel gauge problem. System failure
or bad information comprehension ? The ongoing inquiry will have to say and
it is too early to tell. Especially since it is possible that both hypothesis could
be complementary here.”See what i meant and still mean?
You guys are somewhat of a pain, lol.
Good night all nonetheless, Tay.
Why, because we don’t read French, and don’t trust on-line translation programs (they frequently produce incomprehensible and/or incorrect translations, especially when technical terms are involved)?
Thank you for providing a translation of what the report actually said… the cryptic and fragmentary references to it posted earlier gave me no clue as to what had happened (other than that the plane had flown to near CdG before the pilot ejected).
Your earlier post stated plainly that if anything on the aircraft breaks, it crashes immediately… I was just pointing out that that is incorrect.