:confused: Vectored engines in Russian AF display team? No idea where you have this from but this information is completely wrong.

You’re right; i checked on their site and :

Nowadays the Centre incorporates two aerobatic teams: Russian Knights (on Su-27 fighters) and Swifts (on MiG-29 fighters)

From : http://www.defensetech.org/archives/2008_03.html

The Politics of ‘No’

Don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

The politics of the KC-X decision are heating up, with none other than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) calling for a “thorough examination” of the contract award.

What are the national security implications of using an aircraft supplied by a foreign firm for this essential mission?

Were the risks associated with choosing a conceptual design over a proven capability properly assessed?

Was sufficient consideration given to the impact of the contract award on jobs in America and on our technological base?

I can tell you the answer to question #3 was “no”…and if it were anything different, no one would do business with the Pentagon anymore.

Norm Dicks’ guy chimed in as well yesterday, sending me the following:

Note in this Boeing brochure dated Nov 2006 (while the draft Tanker RFP was out; prior to Jan 30, 2007 Final RFP) that Boeing was prepared to offer a larger tanker version based on the 777 airframe. All the communication that took place between the AF and Boeing (in addition to congressional briefings) indicated clearly that the KC-X competition was for a “Medium Size” tanker. Based on that, Boeing offered the KC-767 tanker version when the final RFP was issued.

Between then and last Friday, the Air Force set aside the briefing slides that clearly indicated its preference for a medium sized tanker and opted for an A-330 tanker that has a greater wingspan and is longer than the jumbo KC-10 tanker. We are not sure what happened here, and this is one of several issues that could be grounds for a protest and material for questions during upcoming hearings in congressional committees.

Send the Raptor to Colombia!

Interesting article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/send_the_raptor_to_columbia.asp

If Colombia and Venezuela were to come to fisticuffs over this latest South American crisis, the Bogota government could quickly find itself in trouble.

Colombia’s Army is both larger than Chavez’s and battle-hardened from years of fighting the FARC. They know the terrain, have greater mobility via their enormous helicopter fleet (including 90 modern Blackhawks), and are supported by a Colombian Air Force that specializes in close air support.

But Chavez would undoubtedly control the skies, or at least come close to it. The Venezuelan Air Force sports 80 or so operational fighters, including F-16s and Sukhoi-30s. Colombia’s Air Force, postured for the close air support mission, has only a single squadron of 20 Dassault Mirage V/Kfirs, airframes that wouldn’t last long in an aerial bar fight with their socialist opponents. Without freedom of the skies to clear the way for Colombian Tucanos and helicopters, Bogota’s advantage on the ground is sharply reduced.

Colombia is our ally, FARC is our mutual enemy, and Chavez has built an entire career as an anti-American posturer. So here’s a three-fer: Let’s have joint U.S.-Colombia exercises involving a squadron or two of our new F-22s. It would concentrate the mind of Chavez, who adores his new Sukhois. His prized fighter-force would soon become scrap metal against F-22s.

The presence of the Raptor would at once remind Chavez of his place in the hemispheric pecking order, help prevent a war, aid an ally, and reassure the American public of the value of the F-22. Let’s get those Raptors to Colombia!

???? What don’t you understand. The thing has been quantified, and it will be 60 % american. Many parts are procured from the US (starting with the engines). And since you don’t seem to realise it, assembly is a time consuming and complex activity, and represent a significant part in the economic/financial value of the building of a plane.

That’s what NG said. BTW, the 767 would have used US engines too. As concerning job creation, they “guaranteed” 300 jobs at Mobile to assembly the planes and 1000 jobs to “tankerize” them. Wow!

How ludicrous is this. Europe buys way more military stuff than the other way round.

From US?

You are right, the USAF does not realise that their budget comes from taxpayer money, they are really thick. Again, using your logic, Europeans should never buy American military equipment because, well, the money comes from European taxpayers, including from Dassault, BAe, EADS, MBDA… workers. Duh.

If red my previous post you’ll see that I find normal for a country to buy from domestic companies, if those are able to deliver.

What does that have to do with the NG/EADS deal??? so if the contract had been awarded to Boeing, the USAF could have afforded tankers and more raptors. Do u realise how mindbogling stupid your argument is??

I think you missed my point. What I’ve said is that USAF will find little simpathy in Congress. Otherwise, yes the NG/EADS win and Raptors are two separate subject.

I am naive! Germany and France cannot afford the “buy Europe” attitude all the time. The next heavy helicopter will be US design. Either a CH-47F or a CH-53K.

Even if this would be true, how many of these would be aquired by France or Germany? 40 billion worth?

The A330 only makes M0.86 and 2.5g, but maybe we can fit a batch with APG-79 and AMRAAM or bomb doors.

🙂 Shut up! Don’t give ideas to USAF!

I’m from Europe, but I didn’t believe when i heard the decision.

– The story that this deal will create jobs in US is a ferry tale. I watched Euronews and the CEO of Airbus said clearly that the plane will be ansambled in US; the wings will be made in UK, the fuselages in Germany and France
– If anyone believe that there will be any reciprocity he’s naive. I don’t see France or Germany buying anything consistent from US for their armed forces (except some improvement contracts for the Franch E3s and E2s, or some dozens of ESSMs and RAMs for the German navy);
– I think that the little pricks in USAF staff do not relize that those 40 billions will come from the US taxpayers, including thousands of Boeing workers;
– If there was a little chance for USAF to receive more thatn 187 Raptors, I think that it’s gone. In 2030 I can see USAF still flying F15Cs. They will fly them maybe 30 hours/year, they will be restriceted to 2-3 G and 0.9 Mach, bet hey, they could be refuelled by superb, brand new A 330.

And that’s not taking into account the downrange component.

I sould said “climbed 130 Nmiles in 3 min.”…:p

In different magazines you can find cost example from $83.131 million per F-35A unit up to $133.237 million – what about this disinformation? I am sorry but I don’t at all believe the cost is like the price you want to sell a Mercedes for the same price as a Honda Civic.

The first figure is the flyaway price (only the aircraft as it exits the factory) the second is program price and includes the needed infrastructure, spares, service, training, weapons.