I don’t think that boeing could have done a lot more to boost the international prospects given the design constraints came from the USN..Boeing also had the F-15E platform to sell internationally and between them (F-15E/K etc and F-1E/F) boeing has managed to do extremely good business internationally given the fact that the DOD has no intentions to back these programs and bank roll R&D improvements that go onto decades..This is the reason why the X-32 was such an important program for boeing as winning the JSF contract would have meant that boeing would have locked in “economies of scale” on a truly international platform (with sales to boot)..FAXX would probably be another F-18 like program..Boeing is stuck playing second fiddle to Lockheed as far as fighters are concerned but thats not a bad position to be in, given the fact that Northrop doesnt even make fighters any more (So boeing could have had it a lot worst)…

Yes but the F15 AND the E/F are on the upper range of the fighter market.

See it like that, there is nothing a Rafale/Gripen can do that an enhanced A/C couldn’t have done as good.

With a little bit of engineering tricks, even the ‘Phoon much vaunted perfs would have been reachable.

LM will not move toward a 5th’ed gen F16 version since they are stuck with the PR loud debate around the 35. In my view Boeing could have a card to play here. Teaming with NG perhaps ?

The SH has been an incredibly succesfull product for boeing..It gave the USN something that they needed as they transitioned..Boeing will naturally milk the line for what its worth, but it really is an aircraft that is not suited for many especially when the competition offers a more catered product for air forces…Air forces are looking for 5th gen or 4.5 gen jets with a strong backing from the promoters as far as incorporating 5th gen features going into the future..SH will be supported by the USN for some years, but the USN is not a france or a UK (EF and Rafale) and will transition onto the F-35C and FAXX and thats where the bulk of the R&D will head. Contrast that to the french or the euro consortium that will invest as much as they can to keep their product relevant..Lockheed will and can do that to their F-35 product just as they did to their F-16’s..boeing does not have that benefit as the USN seems to have committed itself to the FAXX for the post-JSF fighter development plans.

I do agree that the E/F was a successful product for the USN. This is unquestionable. However it failed on the export market as being out of potential customer requirements. An Enhanced A/C had that potential. Given that the USN is closing the door to any major subsequent dev for the E/F, it should have been time (since long) for Boeing to refocus on its customer base.

What they do with their Defender, they could have done the same with the Hornet.

Why the Voyager as such???

Isn’t this an A.330 in general problem???

Can there be anything in the military specialised kit that can cause it to behave this way??

Not doubting anything…just confused

Given that we haven’t heard about such incident in the A330 civil fleet and that the grounding is a mil issue only, it’s probably related to the mil conversion of the plane.

So, pressurization hickup, fuel circuit flaw, engine or electrical failure, outside event factoring in ? It will be interesting to know.

Matthias Rust.:o owned Russian AD.

Mattias Rust on Wiki

By the way, it was to be a “Fr plane” to sneak already bellow the blanket of the huge AD network of the USSR (Reims aviation use to build their own version of Cessna planes. The company founder is… Pierre Clostermann. Yeah the one of the Great Show. :rolleyes:

Does anyone know roughly how far between each impact of those bombs, from a typical alt.?

Regarding the salvo spacing, there is dedicated software routines to set the timer for appropriate spacing upon impact. Up to you to space one every 10 meters, One every 100… Note that there is a minimum spacing time to ensure proper separation.

As early as WWII, bombers had similar device installed.

Upgrading the F22? But what for?

It’s questionable that the 22 will still not rules the skies in the next ten years if you look at system, technology level, entry service date and foreign policy (oh yes the angry Russians will certainly urge the prod of PAKFA mkII just to send them en masse above the US to size Las Vegas and reclaims the debt of the old oligarchy).

The J20 is not build for air dominance (the next gen is what is making concerns) and proper tactics might be what could better counter it.

There is a large share of redundancy among programs to ensure that the industry is still on the edge regarding Radar, Dew, navigation, propulsion, aero, hyperstealth and whatever I forgot given the long list of DoD financed projects etc…

That leaves the airshow question. Oh yes, the F22 might not please the attendance with the same smoky crazy donuts above VIP rooms like others might do (restricted?). But…

By the way, as we are speaking abt the Raf Vs the Pak and have digressed around the stealth feature of the inlet, just let me point out that I suspect the Raf have a very similar approach than the Ru had latter in the frontal part of the problem (90 deg main axis rotation). However, given the lenticular section of the inlets and subsequent piping, I am not sure that the Fr did succeed as much as they wanted initially given the complexity of the mathematical solution (I smell some upgrade being done but that’s wild speculations only).

[…]
It occurs to me no one has used flying boats as aerial tankers.

Tradewind refueling cougars

[…]

They might be quite useful for countries that want force projection but have no large tanker bases.

Imagine the same video with laden Thunderchiefs or F4D…

The prob is that they are draggy and then have less range. The turbulence generated prevents also a more flexible usage hence restraining OP tempo. What is detrimental to all commander.

I like flying boat but their are niche airplanes.