Not news… the F-22 deployment has been known about since late April:

New US Stealth Fighters Now at Iran’s Back Door

By LEE FERRAN
April 27, 2012

America’s most sophisticated stealth jet fighters have been quietly deployed to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran’s mainland, according to an industry report, but the Air Force adamantly denied the jets’ presence is a threat to the Middle East nation.

Multiple stealth F-22 Raptors, which have never been combat-tested, are in hangars at the United Arab Emirates’ Al Dafra Air Base, just a short hop over the Persian Gulf from Iran’s southern border, the trade publication Aviation Week reported.

Air Force spokesperson Lt. Col. John Dorrian would not confirm the exact location of the F-22s, but told ABC News they had been deployed to a base in Southwest Asia — a region that includes the UAE. Dorrian also stressed that the F-22s were simply taking part in a scheduled deployment and are “not a threat to Iran.”

“This is a very normal deployment to strengthen military relationships, promote sovereign and regional security, improve combined tactical air operations and enhance interoperability of forces,” Dorrian said.

And discussed on some aviation forums at the same time:
USAF Deploy F-22 Raptors to Gulf

The main disadvantage of the A-7 was the lack of an AB to keep a high energy-level despite maneuvering.

Well, considering the A-7 IS NOT A FIGHTER, that’s not an issue whatsoever!

It is a ground/maritime strike aircraft only.

Yes, the A-7 carried 2 AIM-9 sidewinders for self-defense only on the fuselage sides… but so did Bucanneer and Nimrod. They were to be used in a “take a snap-shot then get low and run” mode.

Simply put, if you get into ACM with an A-7, you’re already dead.

The A-7E also carried a FLIR pod on a wing station from 1979 on.

NAF A-7E Corsair II BuNo 156883 on the ramp with a FLIR pod, circa April 1976 at Naval Weapons Center, China Lake Ca.:

Part of the rationale behind the Mistral purchase is basic technology acquisition in terms of modular construction and electric propulsion, something indigenous development would not provide as quickly. Both will stand the Russian naval industry in good stead not only in the military market but make their civilian production more competitive as well.

As Wanshan says, it was a choice, not a necessity and (though the need for such ships debatable) it was fundamentally not a stupid one – there are currently other Russian programmes that are FAR more questionable.

Sorry for digressing!

Exactly… a major part of the contract was for France to help modernize the Russian shipyard for modern construction techniques.

Russia could have built some LHDs using the old methods, but they would cost more (higher skilled manpower needs) and take longer, whereas building the same designs in a modernized shipyard would cost less (more “build-to-blueprint” less “make to general plan & modify to fit”), and would be faster (more pre-fabrication in secondary sites with only final block assembly on the slipway/graving dock)..

This has ramifications far beyond just the LHDs… this will change Russian shipbuilding for decades to come, as other shipyards are updated by the Russians using the info from the Mistral contract.

Both crazy and unsustainable in my view!! Hey great plane (no argument here!) But seriously how long can the U.S military (let alone the U.S Government(s) which allows and encourages such higher and higher escalating costs) sustain such outrageous prices 😮

Hell if the PRC is patient enough, the United States military is going to contribute drastically to the demise of the U.S 😡 aka the United States economy collapsing just like it planned and implemented with the Soviet Union!!

Regards
Pioneer

If you had read past that post (#557), you would have seen 2 posts later the explanation that TangoIII had (in post #556) made a typo*… the actual cost for both C-17s combined is $341 million… NOT $24.431 billion!

$170 million per aircraft is still steep, but nowhere near what you were responding to.

* The article TangoIII linked gives “a $171,469,781 firm-fixed-price contract to procure one C-17 aircraft”, and “a $169,755,083 firm-fixed-price contract to procure one C-17 replacement aircraft”.

Thank you much… that’s very nice!

Gsa is correct..2010..

http://www.yorkmaze.com/pages/pictures.html

They’ve removed the large pics from that site… still can’t see anything from the thumbnail… **&&^% men in black!

I see that the UK has gone back to the “B” and STOVL for the two CVFs, now my question is, will the RAF be getting only “B” models too, or will they be getting the “C” still?

Since the plan always was, and still is, for the RAF to provide part of the air wing for “surge combat” operations, then the RAF and the RN are lock-stepped in terms of F-35 version.

What the RN gets the RAF will get, and vice-versa.