Dear mods, please move this thread over to General Discussion. 🙂

The first air vehicle, AV-1, is scheduled to make its first flight on Nov. 11, 2009, while a second demonstrator, AV-2, will be completed around December 2009. Both will be used to demonstrate the viability of carrier operations with an unmanned combat aircraft, with the first X-47B carrier landing expected in November 2011.

Notice the 3 lights on the port side of the nose undercarriage:

A series of nose-leg mounted lights will indicate the readiness of the X-47B to deck crew. A green light will show it is under control of the deck handlers and a blue will indicate it is under control of mission operators, while a red indicates a fault.

Source: AVIATION WEEK – Control Study For First Stealthy UCAS by Guy Norris on Dec 18, 2008

Just as a quick answer:

The original LANTIRN system for the F-15E consisted of a navigation pod and a targeting pod mounted externally beneath the aircraft.
On the starboard site is the AN/AAQ-13 navigation pod and on backboard side was the AN/AAQ-14 targeting pod. The Lockheed Martin Sniper XR Advanced Targeting Pod (Sniper ATP) replaced the AN/AAQ-14 targeting pod.
It offers a 3-5 times increase in detection range over the legacy LANTIRN system.

….
Die Schnelle Inge?

:eek::dev2:
Sounds like the “Die schnelle Enge”!!! ;):), in English: “The fast squeeze!”, which would be more suitable.

Back to topic, I agree with Distiller’s opinion.
I hope, that in near future we will see the rear part of that aircraft model. The engine nozzles might tell us, which engines are planned, so then we can find out dimensions, weight and so on… 🙂

Deino, anything new about the Su-33/Su-33UB for PLAAF/PLANAF mentioned at the Zhuhai Airshow ?

So I’m guessing 1 each on the wing pylons or perhaps one on the center line?

How heavy was this particular nuke that the Foxbat carried?

So folks,
I have read the interesting article about Russian nuclear bombs stationed in East Germany during the Cold War. The article doesn’t really say how many and which kind of nuke the Mig-25RB might have had carried.
In a chart some “special weapons” are listed:
Factory designations: 8U-69 and 8U-64(9U-64)
Military designations: RN-25, RN-28, RN-29, RN-40, RN-42, TN-1000, TN-1200
Maybe our dear Russian members know the right designations. 🙂
The attached profile is from the magazine. I can’t say if this picture with 2 or more nukes (2 other on starboard) is true! :confused:
Please forgive my scanner; it has toothing problems! 😮

So the next US administration will hold a new competition next year…

I knew this would happen!!! ;):)

But just imagine Hilary’s face if Mcain got in then died [ he is 72 it’s possible]
Palin first woman President wouldn’t that p*ss of the Clintons!!

Reminds me of that West-Wing spin-of “Commander in Chief” starring Geena Davis! 🙂

😮
New development in this bidding, or just chaffs and flares…?

Boeing Leaning Toward Not Re-bidding KC-X
Amy Butler and David A. Fulghum
Word that Boeing is strongly considering a “no bid” position for the next round of the U.S. Air Force refueling tanker competition is spreading only two days after the Pentagon released the revised KC-X draft request for proposals (RFP).

Multiple sources familiar with Boeing’s internal discussions say company officials are strongly considering the option of not submitting a proposal as the company’s Integrated Defense Systems sector tries to respond to the draft RFP within the government’s speedy timeline. Comments are due this week.

The move would leave the Defense Dept. without a competition for the KC-135 tanker replacement. A demand from Congress for a competition after the botched attempt to sole-source the work to Boeing in 2003 was what drove the KC-X competition and eventually led to the selection of the Northrop Grumman/EADS Airbus A330-200-based design in February. However, the Government Accountability Office found errors in the scoring of the bids during the last round and directed the government to amend its RFP.

After Northrop Grumman threatened a no-bid position in the last round, the Pentagon added items to the RFP that would take into account the attributes of its A330-200-based design, which was submitted jointly with EADS.

Now, however, the Pentagon is pushing for the replacement tankers as soon as possible after multiple delays. It remains unclear if a no-bid position from Boeing would drag out the KC-X competition or it if would compel the Pentagon to attempt a sole-source of the work to Northrop Grumman/EADS.

Source: Aviation Week – 11.08.2008 – Boeing Leaning Toward Not Re-bidding KC-X