Yes it’s the future of the H25 Gardian and alike.

Seems we have been drinking the same Ale.:very_drunk:

US Marines, MV-22s to Operate from British Carriers.

US Marines

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The British government has been widely ridiculed for having invested billions of pounds to build two new, large aircraft carriers which, because of the widespread incompetence at ministerial and departmental levels, were not fitted with the “cats and tramps” needed to operate fast jets.[…]
By dangling the prospect that the ships might operate MV-22 Osprey tiltrotors, MoD clearly hopes to reduce the level of embarrassment, and give the ships some semblance of an air component until the F-35s arrive.
In the meantime, deploying US Marines and other Ospreys on HMS Ocean is another sign that, having sold off its Harriers to the very same Marine Corps, the Royal Navy is scrambling to find aircraft – in fact, anything but transport helicopters – to give its “flat-tops” a martial air, and to disguise the fact that successive UK governments have sunk billions of pounds to buy carriers with nothing to carry.)

This might be the most pissed-of editor’s note that I have been given the opportunity to read :rolleyes:

From the F35 Thread, link cited by FBW

The Air Force expects to release a request for proposals (RFP) for the T-X trainer replacement program in the “late fall” of 2016, James said. The service should make a contract award within eight to 12 months of issuing the RFP, LaPlante added.

So, one year to wait before having the chance to sight one of the new design ?

Also (from Janes as cited by Tango III in the news section):

one of the Scorpion’s multiple roles is as a jet trainer, the US Air Force’s draft T-X trainer requirement is not currently aligning itself with the Textron platform.

G requirement were doubtfully achievable by the Scorpion, but:

the most significant change: the horizontal tailplane, instead of being a fixed surface, will become a stabilator. That gives it more manoeuvrability, more high-speed manoeuvrability.”

I don’t know in what degree this will improves the chance of the Scorpion, but I have in mind that the co-variable of cost would be pushed in the line.

Sources:
http://www.ainonline.com
http://www.janes.com

Pardon my interruption, but I can’t share your opinion. Manpower cost for example seems to favor the low cost countries.

For example, the DoD expenses 155B$ in services as it was recently underlined in the press. Those are expenditures with a high percentage of Manpower that have hence a direct impact on the total cost. For the same services at the same level of knowledge and formation of their operator, the Chinese department of defense would paid less.

We know that the average salary is significantly less in that latter country that the former. This has an impact at all stage of the Industry pyramid (from low-end contractor to OEM). Hence your argument does not fits.

Another example (rather extreme and no ref to any of the above): during WWII, Nazi Germany was able to match the productivity of the fighter industry of the allies by resorting to enslaved manpower working until their own exhaustion and deaths. This had effectively nearly compensated for the shortage of manpower and lack of access to capital.

So Total expenditures matter only b/w peer countries: Fr Vs Uk or DoD Vs France for example. It hardly have a significance when wages are worlds apart.
Any comparative study sourced from the above doc would require a corrective coefficient.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]238424[/ATTACH]

Have a look here:
http://tetonaviation.com/2013/03/fj-4-fury/

It makes sense: Littoral survey (shipping, fishing, traffics, migrants and SAR support).

The plane can also fulfill some of the Homeland security needs without waiting for the sense&avoid tech being fully released for a Eu UAS. And of course deployment abroad as a cheap sensor bird instead of flying on the clock more expensive platforms.

Sad news indeed.

The tool list on auction is impressive. Would makes any Plant engineer blushing of envy.