topman wrote:Four C-17s
When you deploy overseas you need to take a lot of ground support equipment, and other spares with you, and also the squadron ground crew and their baggage, and of course weapons. So 4 C17's is pretty normal.
topman wrote:Four C-17s
bobp wrote:topman wrote:Four C-17s
When you deploy overseas you need to take a lot of ground support equipment, and other spares with you, and also the squadron ground crew and their baggage, and of course weapons. So 4 C17's is pretty normal.
bobp wrote:topman wrote:Four C-17s
When you deploy overseas you need to take a lot of ground support equipment, and other spares with you, and also the squadron ground crew and their baggage, and of course weapons. So 4 C17's is pretty normal.
Ron5 wrote:Among the components being proven was a deployable operations facility, a large secure unit containing the classified computer servers and other systems and equipment to support UK F-35 operations.
Timmymagic wrote:I wonder how many of these we've actually purchased? Presumably more than 1.
Lockheed Martin has received the first two F-35 deployable facilities manufactured by Australia-based.. company Varley Group...The first two facilities are part of a total of 29 units to be manufactured by Varley Group over a period of three years.
Tempest414 wrote:I have to say it left me a little bit like all the old them and us is still very much alive
Tempest414 wrote:So when I was at Wattisham I spent a day at Marham which included a great visit to F-35 ground training unit which I can't really go into however what I picked up over the visit was when talking to a RN PO he was very pro F-35b and what it means to carrier strike however when talking to the RAF visits officer ( A AB pilot waiting to start on 207 ) it was very clear that he and many others feel the RAF should have F-35a all he could go on about how the A can carry more fuel , weapons and so on. I have to say it left me a little bit like all the old them and us is still very much alive
SW1 wrote:I don’t see the f35 expanding much beyond what’s currently there for the foreseeable.
bobp wrote:The price of them is way too high, also the running costs.
seaspear wrote:This article comes from Fox News but is still interesting in describing the use of laser to get a consistent finish to the surface of the aircraft
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f-35-set-for-laser-boost and also mentions the use of lasers as a weapon of course
SW1 wrote:What a load of waffle. Never ending nonsense
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests