Content of the article doesn’t support your headline.
“I cannot say negotiations with the Chinese contender have evolved as we expected,” the procurement official said.
The defense official said: “[CPMIEC is] still in the game. But they don’t stand where they stood when we selected them. We expect all bidders to improve their offers in line with four criteria: better technological know-how, local participation, quick delivery and price.”
Turkish procurement officials earlier admitted that technical negotiations with CPMIEC had dragged into several problematic areas and “this option now looks much less attractive than it did [in 2013].”
Sources within the Ministry of Defence last night revealed that one of the two long-range bombers was carrying at least one air-dropped “seek and find”d nuclear warhead-carrtying missile, designed to seek and destroy a Vanguard submarine.
…
Rii
Thank you for your #33, I of course accept with relief, from what I feel is a normally erudite person such as yourself.
I think I and many other people have a tendency to post on the internet as if speaking from a stage rather than having a conversation. With that comes a tendency to use the contributions of others as a kind of springboard or launching platform for whatever the hell it is we want to talk about. This mode of posting can be satisfying to engage in and interesting to read, but it runs the risk of alienating other parties who may feel (quite reasonably) that their own contributions are being misconstrued, or (as in this case) that the venom in a subsequent post is directed at them personally. I think it is safe to say that if the threads here (or anywhere else for that matter) consisted of the participants sitting around in a circle from each other, and therefore being forced to acknowledge each other as a human being, they would often take quite a different course.
I rather take exception at being labeled as a drunk for asking a perfectly reasonable question.
I notice that the Australian gentleman in question responded fairly reasonably on the 30th at 1700 ish. But by 1800 his responses included comments that I consider to be unnecessarily insulting.
I apologise if you felt personally insulted, that was not my intent. The shift from the first to subsequent posts is the shift from addressing you and your question personally and directly, to commenting upon the broader pattern of ignorance, myopia, and wilful, motivated blindness that characterises the approach of the Anglosphere to Russia and recent events in Ukraine.
To reiterate: the UK is actively engaged in a variety of endeavours (economic, political, etc.) that are deliberately hostile to the Russian government and Russian interests. Russia is therefore pushing back against the UK (and other similar nations), both in the form of retaliatory sanctions and by other means, including more intensive airborne operations, less respectful of established norms, near British airspace.
Whether the UK’s recent policies towards Russia are justified morally or pragmatically is irrelevant to the point that they should be expected to provoke just this kind of response (and as I mentioned before, it is a fairly trivial response, which in turn reflects the UK’s isolation from and relatively invulnerability to Russia, which in turn feeds into why the UK is willing to pursue the policies towards Russia that it does in the first place) because that is the basic nature of international (and indeed human) relations.
I agree……comming pretty steep at you. But when you live in Australia; No worries mate ! When a russian spyplanes are not hurling above your roof and supersonic interceptors braking your windows….it is no worries mate !
Australia has long involved itself in the western (and particularly Anglo) climate of hostility towards Russia*. We may not share a land border with Russia, but our major cities are almost certainly on Russia’s ICBM/SLBM target list. Personally I consider the willingness of Australia’s leaders to recklessly endanger the Australian populace in this manner to be appalling, but that is a minority opinion.
* To be fair, Australia (as a British Dominion) did oppose the attempted western “intervention” in Russia in 1918-19.
You were doing well there for a second, then your crazy slipped out, might want to tuck that back in. IT’S AN AVIATION FORUM, it is possible to discuss and share ideas without lapsing into nationalistic rhetoric, baiting, and attacking various nationalities.
The topic is simply ridiculous. It’s like a clueless drunk stumbling out of a London pub during the Blitz and asking wots going on ere then? But simple ignorance or idiocy is everywhere, what the OP exhibits is a meaningful ignorance, one that echoes much broader issues with how the nations and polities of nations such as the UK engage with the world today, such that it’s even possible to be mystified by what would seem an obvious (and fairly trivial, tbh) consequence of starkly deteriorating relations between the two nations. “Wait, what do you mean our speeches, actions, policies, etc. have consequences and those consequences can skirt uncomfortably close to our fair island? That isn’t how the world is supposed to work at all!“
The west is waging economic war on Russia; Russia is fighting a Holy War against Nazis and their American allies, and the question being asked is “why are Russian bombers skirting our airspace and generally behaving more provocatively than usual?”
Like, really: wake the **** up to what is happening in this world.
Maybe because the UK is one of Russia’s chief antagonists today (continuing a trend of a few hundred years now). But then that’s always been the way of things — when you’ve got no skin in the game it’s very easy to kick some dust with scant regard for the consequences.
I am shocked, shocked I say!

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods.
I would be interested in the economics of ongoing stealth vs. counter-stealth development. X can counter Y is not so impressive if X costs many times Y, or if a 20% enhancement in X takes far longer and cost much more to develop than an equivalent advancement in Y. Of course it’s unlikely to make much difference in the short or even medium-term, given that nations tend to be rather wary of engaging in conflict with others possessing even one-tenth the resources, but the economics will reveal the underlying structural evolution taking place, and this will tell over longer time scales.
The development deals signed between the US and India yesterday were for the RQ-11 handheld drone, and a payload module for C-130J Hercules.
Yes, talks about engines and EMALS, long-term outlook, etc… but it’s not exactly FGFA is it?
My favorite Heli, the Dophin/Panther:
A great (and very French) helicopter for sure.

Looking forward to the X4. :eagerness:
Give a fighter big enough engines and it will perform wonders.
This should be your sig. 😉
Z-10 (which wins the looks award) will receive new engine and mast-mounted radar in coming years.
I can just see USAF in 2032 following the truncation of LRS-B production: “Look, if only you’d let us build more they would’ve cost less.” :rolleyes: