and now as we bougth it, swedes propaply follow to have their Visby’s upgraded as well…

Hmmmm… I would expect the Swedish navy to acuire navalised BAMSE for the Visby’s. Thats the impression that i get anyway. However with South africa buying Gripen it might be accepted anyway. Timw will tell. 🙂

/Dan

That bow is supposed to pierce the waves instead of the traditional bow that would heave and then slam down. Thus reducing stress on the structure and making the platform more (?) stable.

/Dan

New to me.. Typhoon’s intakes look terribly painful in terms of stealth to me, to be frank..

The Typhoon actually have a limited LowObservability design recuirement. Namely that the frontal radar cross section should not be larger than a sertain number. Cant remember how much though. So I bet that the turbine blades are not visibel unless u crawl up inside the duct.

…are their dimensions too different then F110 etc?

The F135 and 136 diameter is 1-2 cm larger than the F110. Widening the enginge bay by than much would require substantial reasearch and testing of the airframe. Not to speak of any possibel redesign of the intakes to increas mass flow. 🙂 Although it would be cool to see a F-16 Block 60 with Mitsubishi F-2 wings and an F135 :diablo:

…I don’t think that this will be a selection of one of the candidates, both a combination of both.

I agree with Orko. I dont think the TuAF will settle for a single type fleet. The current inventory has plenty of A/G aircraft around (F-4 2020 and F-16) with, for whatever it’s worth, older F-4E’s taking up the high altitude/stand-off support air defence. What TuAF realy lacks at the moment is an air superiority/supremacy platform. F-35 beeing by defenition a strike fighter with secondary air to air capabilities the chances for Typhoon is increasing. Anyway IMO what TuAF needs today is a Typhoon for air defence and the F-35 as a strike fighter. However, as always politics will decide what and how many.

Yeeeeeeeeey!!!!!!!!11

😀

Something’s not right with your computer then, because it links me to an article about the SHAR with a bunch of images

Interesting. Would you mind trying it again, & let me know what happens? Preferably avoiding picking up a cached page…

Hey I also get that SHAR article.

…
The C-295 has no real STOL performance (C-235 had), but the wing area wasn’t increased, and it has no APU. Basically it is a nice aircraft for peace-time and backwater ops, but not suited for mil-ops. The C-27J can load 88in pallets, for the C-295 you have to take them apart (they mask that fact by saying they have the same dimensions as the Chinook), plus you can’t really fit an uparmored Humvee into the C-295.

A400M is a joke. (Had two or three post about why I think this is).
…

Well wasn’t it developed to be just that? “a nice aircraft for peace-time and backwater ops”. Anyway like i wrote in my previous post i also consider the C-295 cargo hold to be to narrow. Hence i think that Airbus should develop a A400M derivative.

Is the JCA required to do frontline service then? I mean it is supposed to replace C-23’s and i don’t think they are sutabel for that.

I haven’t read ur “A400M is a joke” tread but i think that from a US point of view the A400M would not be a good solution. But for non superpower normal countries with normal budgets (read European) 😉 the A400M would be ideal.

🙂
Dan