bbcnews.com is reporting that it is actually a Typhoon EJ-200 Eurojet left over from one of the “DA” developmental airframes being used in the attempt and not a RB.199 from a Tornado.

This thread should be moved

It started out as a simple question about the military outlook for the USA depending on whom was elected in two weeks.

It has degenerated to a polemic. It needs to be moved to the general discussion forum.

But before it does I would challenge Republicans here to ask themselves why they seem to be so far out of touch with the sentiments of the entire world outside the United States.

American exceptionalism is a pretty weak moral argument.

Without getting drawn into a pointless argument with individuals here who seem to have a hate on for Obama, let me say this…As far as the US military goes, either McCain or Obama as President will be forced to make many drastic cuts to current Orbat and on future programs. Blame Bush for this, McCain or Obama are going to be forced to try and pick up the pieces.

The only significant difference I see between them, considering the dire econonic outlook in the USA is on Iraq. Obama favours a relatively rapid withdrawal of forces while McCain obviously does not. Obama favours more forces to Afghanistan and so does McCain. IMHO I think that the following programs might have the most to either gain or lose in the next few years.

F-22:I see the F-22 as being toast. Too much airplane that they can’t export and too costly to provide enough numbers I see the USAF only getting what is already ordered.

C-17: Expensive but useful. The C-5 Galaxy re-engining/refit is getting out of control on costs and it might be seen by both the Administration and Congress that a few more C-17’s might be a bargain.

F-35: Too late to stop now with too much momentum. I think the STOVL F-35B is the most vulnerable of the three models out there. I would not be suprised if the British get screwed and they go back to a single source procurement of P&W engines for the F-35. Might be a good idea to short Rolls-Royce stock.

F/A-18 E/F/G: Safe and might pick up a few more orders as C models wear out. Who knows…perhaps a few USAF orders for the Rhino might allow some F-15’s to be retired. Growlers might also be very useful to the USAF.

V-22: Who knows. The V-22 just has had a year of service in Iraq. To me the Marines seem to have done their best to keep the Osprey out of really dangerous situations that might impact procurement numbers. $100 million per copy for a concept not proven seems pretty vulnerablle to budget cutbacks if you ask me. Perhaps the marines might end up with Blackhawks or S-92’s or something…

Until the F-35 flies and is tested in a form closer to what the customers have actually signed up for, this back and forth fanboy debate about the performance of the plane is conjecture at best and meaningless at worst.

This thread is no better than the ongoing “Pak-FA Saga” threads when it comes to conjecture. Lockheed Martin will only silence its detractors when it can show that the actual hardware it is building can perform as well as they claim it will.

Until then folks…….

The simple answer would be the prevalence of the concept of multi-role aircraft. Many Air Forces worldwide only fly one or perhaps two front line fighter aircraft. These fighters fly interception, CAP, Air Policing, Recon, EW, CAS and conventional bombing missions.

If for example the most widely used Western Fighter, the F-16, was used as it was originally intended, as a lightweight day fighter it would be flying at a considerably lighter weight than the erxamples in service today. Multi-role requires multiple pieces of kit that have to be dragged along on each type of mission flown, whether needed or not, hence the increased gross weight and size you refer to. Yes radars and engines are lighter but some pieces of equipment take up considerable volume.

Cheers.

Call it a publicity stunt or a political statement all you want, and I myself do question the timing of this deployment, however for an Air Force that has never taken these bombers on a significant overseas deployment before with minimal support this is a serious accomplishment. Remember this is not a force like the USAF that shuttles B-52’s B-1’s and B-2’s back and forth around the world everyday. This is a country that could hardly get their best crews 15-20 hours per year of stick time until recently.

In and of itself this is a significant accomplishment and I am glad the crews were able to return home safe.

Well, Romania already has navalized Pumas, Bulgaria ordered Panthers so they won’t buy it.
Poland has some donated Seasprites, so they are a potential market.
Slovenia? They don’t need 11 ASW/ASuW helos, having a very small shoreline.
Baltic States are also too small to afford operating such a fleet.

Note: the Seasprite in the picture is a New Zealand one, not Australian – the Kiwi gives it away 😀

So does the Maverick…..The Aussies were planning on using Penguin missiles IIRC.

Poland is a definite possibility. So is Croatia perhaps?

…Look, every nation has a right to its own territorial sovereignty, including Pakistan…

Yes they do, but when the country in question does not do the job of ensuring that attacks launched from its territory go across a sovereign border then to a point they lose the sovereignty argument.

if Pakistan was serious about its sovereignty it would ensure that it’s tribal areas were not being used in this way. You can’t have it both ways.