Compared to the C-17 or C-130J when they started out it looks pretty normal.

Maybe from a development point of view, but there wasn’t the same kind of political influences for either of those aircraft that the A400M has suffered from. Most of the problems continue to be associated to the TP400, an engine that was chosen largely as a result of political pressures rather than an absolute industrial need. It looks like it was a mistake to develop both the aircraft and a new engine, something that even the Airbus Military CEO has reportedly admitted. Had the alternative engine option been chosen, then maybe the A400M may have been already flying. Many of the countries that have ordered the A400M need it now or at least from the original in-service date, not x amount of years down the line. Don’t forget 2011 is when it is supposed to begin entering service and when it will have initial operating capability. The UK and other nations that have ordered it will not have received their full deliveries until later on. Given that there has always been a tight schedule between development and delivery, further problems do little to suggest that this is anyway a smooth or normal development programme.

Incidentally, Defensenews also reports this story and says that the RAF will purchase two further MQ-9 Reapers next year, to add to the two (plus third to be delivered in January 2009) and that it is still assessing options for the Nimrod R1 replacement (thus again acknowledging that it will be scrapped). Air Marshall Thorton claims that the Rivet Joint is being considered along with the [expensive] option of fitting systems to the Nimrod MRA4 or the smaller Sentinel.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3707962&c=EUR&s=AIR

I have to also go with the Fairey Battle. Obsolete by the time WW2 started and horrendous losses during the Battle of France. I remember about 20 years ago I visited a farmer who used to store WW2 aircraft pending delivery to museums for restoration. Among the collection included one of the few Fairey Battles in existence and it looked as bad in real life. Awful plane.

N-UCAS

That bit about splitting tranche three has jogged my memory now, it was a recent Reuters article, in which the writer (Sabine Siebold) managed to get confirmation from the German Ministry of Defence that the letter from Wolf did exist.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/allBreakingNews/idUKL1120854320080711?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

It amazed me when I read this article that it took three people to write! One thing that was not looked at, however, was a recent report (I believe from a German newspaper) that mentioned that it was being considered to split tranche three orders into two batches with the first batch being ordered by early 2009 with a second batch a later date largely as a result of UK and Italian wishes to reduce their orders. It is also worth mentioning that tranche three deliveries are due to take place in 2012-2017, so the UK ordering the complete batch and then later offloading some of the aircraft to other countries like Saudi Arabia in a similar way to what will be done with the UK’s tranche two order is possible. Given that the Saudis’ original Typhoon order is part of the RAF’s tranche two (including those to be built in the UK and Saudi Arabia), the UK can already consider that it has offloaded 72 aircraft as it may not be obliged to order extra aircraft to make up the numbers.

Lockheed Martin (with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems) is carrying out a programme supposedly in full consultation with other nations involved in the F-35 known as “JSF Delta SDD” that aims to possibly eliminate certain classified materials on export versions as required by the US National Disclosure Policy and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). It is possible that this would concentrate on some of the radar absorbent coatings and other fuselage materials, given that Lockheed Martin aims to have some commonality with the standard F-35 that will be operated by the US. Other bits and pieces that are specifically required by the nations that may not be available on all aircraft also come under JSF Delta SDD. There have been concerns raised among some partners over the JSF Delta SDD because it could, in theory, provide them with a less capable F-35. As I said before, most of the countries involved in the programme may get the bog-standard F-35 with any changes made due to JSF Delta SDD eventually being incorporated into an export version.

The way round the F-22 problem was to have a similar programme where there would be a different version for the export market, eliminating the classified stuff.

Bill Sweetman did a good piece on JSF Delta SDD for Aviation Week last year.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,156400,00.html

Hmmm.. I think Wikipedia can be a bit dodgy with its info and is secondary or third sourced (eg. the equipment holdings come from the BBC quoting Jane’s Security Sentinel) and anything it can find on the Internet, including the CIA world factbook. It does not even detail where the Georgian AF info came from. Really, I’d completely ignore Wikipedia for such information, although if they do show links as to where they got the info from, it might be worth checking the original source.

I usually refer to the UN Register of Conventional Arms for equipment totals as these have to be submitted by the governments of each state. Unfortunately, while it provides fascinating info on recent imports and exports of equipment (eg. who supplied what up to 2007) for the Caucasus states, it lacks any info on equipment holdings. That leaves the IISS’s Military Balance. While widely held as authoritative, personally I find that the information provided is not that reliable and is often is dated. I suppose there is also the AFM Air Force Intelligence… if you have a few pennies going spare. I can’t think of anything else.