Talked with a few C-5 crew guys in a pub a few months back, and they told me that the airplane is better than its numbers, and is built to fly safely even when checklists ground it for failing systems. They said the plane is incredibly redundant. They also seem to think the fleet still has plenty of flying time left. Not the best source in the world, but…

Easy fellahs, the first reports I saw mentioned an “air offensive.” Its not until I starting checking again now that the facts are trickling in that its an air assault and the possible units involved. This is looking like a much more logical use of resources. You all do keep me on my toes though, which is appreciated.

My apologies, guess I spoke before doing my homework. Thanks for setting me straight Frank!

Does anyone have any information on the PLA B611 (Turkish Toros)?

I have also seen an article where they said the -M had the same range as the -E. But aside from that one article, everywhere else says they are different – but the length, diameter, etc. seem to be the same. In which case, if the -E and -M have such similar characteristics, how could they have improved the range from the E to the M?…

SJones,

By all of the accounts I have seen, the ranges of the export and Iskander-M are different. As it was previously stated, the export needs to comply with the MTCR. In terms of your latter question, see the attached article excerpt:

Bolt From the Blue
Russian land-based precision-strike missiles
by Michal Fiszer and Jerzy Gruszczynski
Mar. 1, 2003

At the same time, it was officially announced that the Iskander-E had passed the all trials successfully and is ready for production, while the trials and updates of the full Tender system are still ongoing. Most probably, the aforementioned Russian brigade has been equipped with a hybrid of the Iskander-E’s simpler missile avionics with the Russian missile. The latter has a larger fuel chamber and a heavier warhead (allowed under INF). In the Iskander-E, the missile size and weight is the same, but some ballast is incorporated to stay within the 300-km range and 500-kg warhead limits. The 700-kg Russian submunitions warhead would carry 72 instead of 54 homing bomblets, and a penetrator is available.

How reliable this source is, I do not know. It seems like adding ballast would be too close to non-compliance with the MTCR, but then again, maybe not… Perhaps a software change additionally? – I don’t know.

Any thoughts from anyone?

You’re all missing the bigger picture here. It’s not a matter of taking the islands, or even how to hold the islands once the 50000 troops are ashore. The question is, how do you hold them long term? The initial losses would be bad enough, but then your conquering force is at the end of a logistical nightmare. Argentinian subs and anti-ship missiles could pick away at resupply convoys, and few countries have the airlift required to maintain the forces with an airbridge. Remember your history, Lincoln choked the Confederacy long-term by cutting off supplies. Argentina could let another country take the island, and simply choke off supplies and let the forces starve to death until the country’s political leadership (and citizenry) demanded the end of a war. Look at US support for long wars like Vietnam and Iraq. The country would have an incredible challenge justifying the costs of such a conquest.

Does anyone know when the coil will be put onboard an actual aircraft and tested?