TinWingQuestion: Would the US ever agree to sell Mothballed B-1B bombers to the UK?
How many B-1B bombers are currently parked at AMARC?
It should be pointed out B-1Bs cycle in and out of storage, and the only 100 were produced to begin with. The USAF will utilize every B-1B airframe, either through further use or for cannibalization in the next 30 to 40 years.
The RAF needs long range strike aircraft, after all future operations may see a lack of usable Airbases near the target area (either due to countries refusing to allow allied aircraft operating rights or simply no airbases in the close vicinity.)
Just look at the vital role of the B-52, B-2 and B-1B in recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As AFM have reported, the RAF is facing a looming ‘Bomber shortfall’ so surely going back to the ‘good old day’s’ of long range strike aircraft should be seriously looked into.
The sad truth is that the RAF’s current and (future fleet) of combat aircraft is fundimentally useless in most post-9/11 defense scenarios.
In retrospect, it seems incredible that the RAF failed to learn the value of long range offensive capabilities from the Falklands.
After the events of 1982, it should have occured to the Thatcher government that the total replacement of the Vulcan B.2 fleet by the range deficient Tornado was a mistake. The retention of even a small fleet of Vulcans would have allowed the RAF to maintain a limited but useful long range capability.
Of course, the first Gulf War again revealed the extent of the Tornado’s range deficiency. The Tornado required 3 inflight refuelings while the Buccaneer required only a single refueling for the same flight profile. In the post-Cold War draw down, the RAF again made the choice to prematurely retire the longer ranged aircraft.
TinWingLooks like Saudi Arabia won’t be getting it, if its going for the Eurofighter.
The Eurofighter lacks the air-to-ground capabilities of the current F-15E. Tranche 2 Eurofighters can replace obsolete Tornado ADVs, but are barely more flexible in the air-to-ground role than the planes they are replacing.
The aging F-15 is still the most capable strike fighter in production.
TinWingTinWing, are you Chinese? If you try to export that thing to the old country, you could be in for it with the feds.
Why would you think that I’m Chinese?
TinWingSounds as though you are interested? 😀 The seller says the machine is in the Border Country (U.K.). Would the U.S. issue an export licence for this?
I am very interested in the identity and history of the airframe in question.
TinWingCan anyone identify the airframe in question?
Where did the pictures come from?
TinWingWell….whoever wants them they better hurry up an order them. The production line will be closed in the next couple of years.
Nothing is certain….but the odds of the C-17 remaining in production will be increased by even small scale foreign orders.
The fate of the C-17 depends on the troubled C-130J program and the C-5 upgrade program.
TinWingTHE ability of Australia’s new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.
And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters – at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia’s history – will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.
“Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?” he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.
A crucial aspect of the fighter’s “stealth capability” – radio frequency signatures – has been downgraded from “very low observable” to “low observable”, according to the US Defence Department website.
Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a “marble and a beach ball” on enemy radar :D:D. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.
A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the “design requirements” for the fighter to “avoid detection” had not.
Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter
website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia’s Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.
But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. “There is no reason to pull it from there,” she said.
A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: “We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision.”
The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
He said [u]the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects.[/u] 😮
It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.
He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.
[u]”[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate,”[/u] 😮 😮 he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s regional air superiority.
The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.
It is understood Dr Jensen’s concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force’s flight test and evaluation centre.
Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.
Britian, Norway, Denmark and now Australia too … alas
What we have here are a few statements from an out-of-power opposition member, along with a hawkish amateur defense critic.
TinWingOn a seperate note you should compare chinese and indian avation industries in the 80s. India had double the amount of engineers and was set to take off. While china then got the deals and is larger than the indian industry now. I dont know how much larger now but double the size if memory serves me correctly
Indeed, much of the criticism of the Chinese aviation industry during the 1990s centered around the supposed shortage of Chinese aeronautical engineers.
TinWingPaul
I know Gerard, I know his book and I know the programme.
In this case he is incorrect. BAe had manufacturing know-how, not design input.
YS
You should read Roy Boot’s book.
BAe’s simultaneous collaboration with both Saab and India’s ADA is fact, not a theory.
TinWing… and what’s about these “rumours” that the P.106 was the basis of an early LCA configuration … or that the P.106 at least influenced this design ?????
It is more than a rumor. Roy Boot and other top level BAe execs made frequent visits to both India and Sweden in an attempt to generate a collaborative venture. It is not clear if a tri-national fighter consortium was ever proposed between Sweden, India and the UK, but it is clear that BAe’s P106 was a common link between both the Gripen and early LCA design proposals.
Saab’s 2105 configuration was clearly based on BAe’s P106B, as was the early 1980s NAL windtunnel model revealed at AeroIndia 2005.
In the end, BAe only received subcontractor status on the Gripen until the 1995 marketing agreement.
In retrospect, it is clear that cooperation with India was never going to happen. BAe might have attempted to negotiate with the ADA, but like many subseq
TinWingIndia’s population is younger than China’s which means that it will be far more productive.
India’s population is younger because of largely unchecked population growth.
Rapid population growth leads to increasing poverty and environmental degradation – not increased productivity.
India’s economy will overtake China’s.
All of the indicators point to the contrary.
India is a democracy. China is a dictatorship run by old men.
China’s leadership is hardly “old” these days.
It should also be pointed out while India’s communist party is currently part of the governing coalition, China’s “communist party” is controlled by men who could be better described as “capitalists.”
Put your money on India.
Foreign investment in India amounts to only 1/10 of the amount that is flowing into China.
TinWingAgreed. The SH-60 is just too small……..the US Navy IMHO really messed up when they chose that airframe…….
Loads are typically underslung in the VERTREP role, not carried internally.
For most roles, the internal capacity of a Sea King, EH101, S-92 or NH-90 is overkill.
TinWingFrom xinhui @ CDF
FJ-1 ABM
This thing almost looks like the old American Sprint ABM with an extra booster stage added.
Sprint was the lower tier of the old 1970s American ABM system
TinWingWhats this?
missile/rocket? Submersible/Gigantic torpedo? :confused:
It looks like a 2 stage submarine launched ballistic missile! 😮
TinWingThe MRH-90 is too expensive, and has too long a leadtime.
The best bet is to make an off-the-shelf purchase (or lease) of the Sikorsky MH-60S. You would still have commonality with both the Aussie army and navy’s S-70s.
If the MH-60S is good enough for the VERTREP and SAR needs of the U.S. Navy, why should the RAN insist on the MRH-90 which costs 2 to 3 times as much?
Sign In
