Not anymore than a Tomahawk. They both do air combat about the same. 😉

The Super Hornets do that.

Just wondering, if they were to start again, from now, what sort of aircraft(s) should/could be produced, to replace all those F-16s and F/A-18As and Harriers? Would it still be the F-35? Or would it be two or three different aircraft? Would it be UCAVs? Is the STOVL requirement actually (a) necessary, and/or (b) cost-effective? (Or is ir just the Marines and the Brits saying “Well we have the Harrier now, so we want a plane to replace it, only better?”) Would the Navy insist on doing their own thing? How useful is ‘stealth’ in reality? How much is it worth paying to have ‘stealth’?……..etc.

Like I said, it’s probably not going to happen, but it’s interesting to think about it….

Definitely one for the next James Bond film 😀

it looks video-shopped to me, if it was real the tarmac would catch fire or the concrete explode
myths like this are all over the net

Cheap trick… Why not address the concern, rather than trying to ridicule it?

DATE:05/03/10
SOURCE:Flight International
EADS strikes deal with A400M customers
By Niall O’Keeffe

EADS and the customers for its A400M military transport have reached a “principle agreement” to amend the contract governing the programme, the manufacturer has revealed. The contract is to be amended “in the coming weeks”, says EADS.

An EADS statement sets out four commitments made by the customer nations within the terms of the principle agreement. The nations will increase the price to be paid by €2 billion ($2.7 billion). They will waive all liquidated damages related to current delays. They will provide an additional amount of €1.5 billion in “export levy facilities” to ensure their participation in future export sales. Finally, they will accelerate pre-delivery payments in the period of 2010 to 2014. ……

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/05/339142/eads-strikes-deal-with-a400m-customers.html

I have a feeling most of the European members of the forum will disagree with me, but my opinion on the tanker is that the 767 is the better fit for the program and here’s my opinion as to why:

The KC-135 fleet is what is in need of replacement, and from everything I ever read, the original KC-X proposal was designed to be a replacement for strictly the -135, with a slightly larger airframe desired due to the requirement for some additional cargo capability. The KC-767 fits this requirement, in that it is larger than the -135 though not to the extent of the A330. The 767 still offers enhanced capabilities over the current KC-135 fleet.

The A330 will make a fine tanker…I don’t doubt that. It’s just not the correct fit for what the USAF needs now. In the future, if a KC-10 replacement is desired then the A330 or other larger designs should certainly be looked at.

Let me make it clear that though it sounds as if I’m being pro-Boeing because they are an American company that’s not the case. I would obviously like to see any American company get business, but I truly believe that the 767 is the better fit for the KC-135 replacement.

If this were a competition for a KC-10 replacement, then I would certainly believe that the A330 was the aircraft for the job. Although it doesn’t carry quite as much fuel as the KC-10, it is still far larger than is necessary for a KC-135 replacement.

I feel like people who get caught up in the pro-European vs. pro-U.S. argument are forgetting just what the original requirements were written for…..a KC-135 Stratotanker replacement.

The issue is not so much about airframes, what’s fundamental is providing the required capability, in the most cost-effective way. The time to review how that capability can best be provided is when the current hardware – in this case the KC-135 – comes up for replacement. Simply replacing the KC-135 one-for-one with a new aircraft of similar size is missing the opportunity to have a ‘back-to-basics’ review of how the job can best be done. It could be 50 years before the next chance to do this comes around.

Since the late 1970s, and the F-16 “sale of the century”, europe has manufactured the vast bulk of its deffense equipment. Thats going on 25 years now. When the US was providing loads of equipment ti europe, it was primarily because the european industry wasnt capable of producing that sort of stuff. Now they are. Why on earth should the US now buy european and let our own industry suffer? Sorry, but it just isnt going to happen. (and just to point out one area of US buying european products…..I give you the M-1 tank……..on the M-1 the gun was British…..on the M-1A1/2….the gun is german, the coax machinegun is Belgian, and the smoke grenade launcher is British. Small I know, but….hey…..the US has NEVER manufactured a descent tank gun.

Like it or not, most arms deals are about money and politics rather than capabilities. The US has been dumping cheap and/or subsidised weaponry on its “allies” since WWII, sometimes accompanied by large bribes (it’s not alone in this, seems to be par for the course in the arms business) and usually followed by lucrative support contracts. The result is that it is often uneconomic for smaller countries to buy anything other than American. It’s taken the coming together of European countries in the EU and various Europe-wide companies such as EADS for alternatives to American products to be developed, especially aircraft.

“Why on earth should the US now buy european and let our own industry suffer?” you say…. But every country could say the same. Whatever happened to free trade, the free market, co-operation (not domination) between allies……?

(As for the M1, all the US bought from the British and Germans was the design: the guns and armour are built in the US.)

Fixed price development works in two cases, otherwise they most always end up “going South”. :

1. You are buying something totally off the shelf, with virtually no changes. As soon as you get into development, even relatively minor, you start getting Government “help” and “guidance”, which can skyrocket the cost.

2. Virtually all responsibility and authority is vested in the contractor. In this case, if they win, they win big, but if they estimate wrong, they eat it, which tends to make their estimates pretty accurate. This is fairly rare. It’s not that well known, but most of the F-14D development was done this way. Engines and fire control were not Government Furnished Equipment, but were rather procured and integrated by the contractor. Result: an airplane that came in ahead of schedule, exceeded requirements and was on budget.

An important corollary is that the Go’vt mustn’t modify requirements or change the rules midstream. Gov’t’s just won’t guarantee that anymore.

Fixed price contracts for follow-on production often work, once development is behind you, but the above corollary still applies.

Yes, but that wasn’t the question. Apart from e.g. integrating comms. and maybe some other USAF standard avionics, what sort of development work needs to be done in respect of the two candidate tankers?