As for the Falklands, we can’t go through history continually citing this one-off saga as a yard stick for the future. If we’re going to do that, we may as well throw-in every other one-off campaign.

Of which there have been a lot, haven’t there?

Which is precisely the strong point of carriers… the ability to flexibly respond to whatever comes up… especially if the particular circumstance wasn’t part of the long-range planning!

As for my imaginary crystal ball, well one doesn’t need one. Far easier to extrapolate an estimation of our future needs by looking at the past.

Which is full of unexpected events, and “one-off” campaigns that caught the planners by surprise.

And what is your response?

To summarize your posts here:

Lets eliminate the capability to respond to unexpected events, and only prepare for ones we can see coming a long way off!

Reference the “5-year rule” in place after WW1.

but then i took a look over the bow of the submarine, and saw torpedo tube doors….

I really thought this thing was only meant for deep sea and miner exploration…

Or launch bays for small UUVs (which have short ranges, so deploying and recovering them at depth in the correct location makes sense)… or for grapple arms/sampling equipment, which then bring the sample inside the hull.

George had projected several developments of the Student including a 4 seater with a more powerful engine and also a twin engined version with podded engines a la Citation.

From Jane’s Aircraft ~1963:

Why an AT6 though why not a Cessna or Beech Baron?

And the US (Obama) plans to withdraw from A-stan in tops five yrs IIRC. So what need would the USAF have for AT6 then?
The idea as souch is not a bad one though. And I’d love to see this thing buzz around on low level over Helmand. But how realistic is it? And why not just buy Super Tuccanos of the shelf instead?

Same answer to both of you… because the US already has several hundred in service, the T-6 being the primary Basic and Intermediate Flight Trainer for the USAF & USN.

Thus, there already is a large-scale logistics, maintenance, support, and training network in place… something that would have to be set up for the Super Tucano!

As for “when we withdraw from Iraq & Afghanistan”… the Iraqi Air Force has a number of T-6s on order as its new trainer, so they can take over some of these easily (same notes as earlier mentioned)… and the Afghans are likely to end up with AT-6s as well.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20101015.aspx

Michael Evans, Pentagon Correspondent

This would bring accusations that the launch of X37B, and a second vehicle planned for later this year, could lead to the militarisation of space.

Someone needs to remind Mr. Evans that a hunter-killer satellite was tested by the USSR in the late 1980s, and that similar systems are, and have been, developed and ready for use (in small numbers) by the US, USSR/Russia, and (by some reports) China for at least 10 years.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/top_gun_2.html

Maverick would be confused and slightly depressed by the state of Top Gun these days, anyway.
…..
Since 1986, the TOPGUN syllabus has been changed so the focus is far less on the spectacular and dramatic air-to-air dogfights that defined Top Gun and far more about teaching U.S. pilots to drop very large bombs on very small ground targets.

In 1986 there was the US Navy Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun) and the Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School (TopDome) at NAS Miramar, California, and the Naval Strike and Warfare Center (Strike U.) at NAS Fallon, Nevada.

In 1993, the post-Cold-War BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) process ordered MCAS El Toro (the USMC’s west coast F/A-18 base) closed, and its squadrons relocated to NAS Miramar (now redesignated MCAS Miramar). The F-14 squadrons moved to NAS Oceana, Virginia, & the E-2C squadrons moved to NAS Point Magu, California.

In 1996, the moves were complete… with TopGun moving to NAS Fallon, and merging with Strike U. to form the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center (no sexy nick-name, just NSAWC, pronounced “EN-SOCK”), which co-ordinates and conducts all USN air combat training, combining A-A, A-G, AEW&C, SAR, and other helicopter missions… as well as pre-deployment group training of the entire air wing for the carrier as a single body.

The USMC has its own, smaller, fighter & ground attack school… Marine Aviation Weapons & Tactics Squadron – One (MAWTS-1) at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, but Marine aircrew also attend NSAWC.

C-141A
Empty weight: 136,462 lb (61,898 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 316,608 lb (143,610 kg)

C-141B (lengthened version)
Empty weight: 144,492 lb (65,542 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 342,100 lb (147,000 kg)

Il-76D
Empty weight: 159,000 lb (72,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 346,000 lb (157,000 kg)

CL-99
Max takeoff weight: ~400,000 lb (~182,000 kg)

C-17
Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)

CL-99 = C-141B with larger diameter fuselage.

Canadair CL-200: A few specs from KM Molson’s “Canadian Aircraft since 1909” pg 511.

“laminar-flow control. Six 18,000 lb (8,172 kg) st Pratt & Whitney JT3Ds. Span 325 ft (99.05 m); length 140 ft (42.67 m); height 55 ft 10 in (17.02 m); wing area 22,417 sq ft (2,082.5 sq m).”

Possibly developed using info from the BKB-1 flying-wing glider developed by Canadair employees in the late fifties.

http://www.twitt.org/Brochocki.html