|
Cygni posted:Also the fact that Typhoon spent years as an expensive paperweight before Tranche 2 gave it any real usability. Had a look on wikipedia and came across this gem. quote:In 2001, it was announced that the Royal Air Force (RAF) would not use the aircraft's internal 27 mm Mauser cannon. This was due to a desire to save money by removing gun support costs, ammunition stocks, training costs, etc. The gun was also deemed unnecessary since the missile armament was believed to be adequate in the Typhoon's fighter role. However, because removal of the cannon would affect the aircraft's flight characteristics, requiring modification of the aircraft's flight software the RAF decided that all of its Typhoons would be fitted with the cannon but that it would not be used or supported. The service argued that this would save money by reducing the requirement for ground equipment, removing training costs and avoiding the fatigue effects of firing the cannon. The RAF maintained the option to activate the cannons at very short notice were operational requirements to change.[14] However in a third change of policy, the Daily Telegraph reported on 3 October 2006 that the RAF will fully utilise the cannon.[15] I...uh...what? 
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
LOO posted:
The aforementioned VA-195 Dambusters also dropped this on Pyongyang in 1952:  "We dropped everything on 'em but the kitchen sink...wait, I guess we dropped that too!"  Cygni posted:Also, this really saves the Rafale and Dassaults rear end. No loving joke. Export sales are a really nice thing to have. It'll be interesting now to see what Brazil decides to buy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Q_res posted:I think not killing Dassault was a pretty drat good reason to bail on Typhoon. And I'm not sure what to make of the Super Hornet comparison. Unless I'm misreading you, that seems to imply it's somehow inferior to the Typhoon, and I've seen nothing to suggest that. It depends what we're talking about. The Rafale is a fancy bomb truck. In an aerial engagement I'll take the Typhoon any day. If we're in a permissive BVR environment, I'll even take an F-15C or E. Or a Super Hornet. If we're carrying bombs downtown, obviously the Rafale is a very competent platform, and if I've got something else to use as my escorts I'd love to have them on my side. There's nothing BAD about the Rafale. It's just 25 years late to the party. Unless Dassault can price it to be the next MiG-21 or even -29, it'll never amount to much outside of France. Throatwarbler posted:
Clearly you haven't kept tabs on the ridiculous decisions the MoD has had to make over the past few years. If you want to see where the US DOD is heading, look at what's happened to the Brits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
We've been on the same page for a long time. The VXX and MR4A programs both were basically done, at huge expense, before being canceled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The Rafale is a fancy bomb truck. Um, what? The Rafale is more than a mere bomb truck like the Superbug. It's a capable fighter that handles extremely well, and in exercises has given the Typhoon all it can handle. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that it is substantially inferior to the Typhoon in any regard, save hypothetical advantages the Typhoon could gain with a planned upgrade in the future. Maybe. edit: If I was in the market for a cutting-edge lightweight fighter, I would take Rafale over Typhoon every time. Q_res fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Had a look on wikipedia and came across this gem. It's quite brilliant, actually - MoD gets guns on their EFs without breaking any laws, and stands a chance of maybe at some point getting funds to use them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
Added to the list of poo poo I want to do before I die - fly under an aurora.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It depends what we're talking about. The Rafale is a fancy bomb truck. In an aerial engagement I'll take the Typhoon any day. If we're in a permissive BVR environment, I'll even take an F-15C or E. Or a Super Hornet. If we're carrying bombs downtown, obviously the Rafale is a very competent platform, and if I've got something else to use as my escorts I'd love to have them on my side. I'm assuming it's supposed to operate in conjunction with many of the planned 200+ Su-30MKIs they have?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Ah, the Bell Airacobra... famous for being the world's first and only mid-engined warbird. Don't forget the P-63, which evolved from the P-39. The Russians loved the P-63 and used the for close-support. The Fisher XP-75 was also mid-engined but never made it to the war. Fun fact: The export version of the P-39 was the P-400, also referred to as "a P-40 with a Zero on its tail." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
PhotoKirk posted:The Fisher XP-75 was also mid-engined but never made it to the war. The Fisher P-75 was goddamn interesting. If I understand correctly, the Fisher body plant in Detroit was set to be converted to B-29 production, which would mean huge expense in rebuilding and refitting and retooling the factory, technology-transfer from GM to Boeing, and a much much slower turnaround to retool for the post-war automotive market. To forestall this, they cobbled together a design from the spare parts bin that would allow them to keep their factory and workforce, but not actually have to build any airplanes. The tail off of a SBD Dauntless, the wing sections from a P-51 Mustang, and the landing gear from an F4U Corsair. It also featured the Alison V-3420 W-style engine, that was two V-1710 engines from a P-38...which never worked, and was the end of several other late-war projects. And my favorite 4 .50 cal guns shooting through counter-rotating props. Can you imagine the interrupter gear for that? Anyway, it worked, they only had to build 13, and the war ended before the whole sad scam was revealed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Q_res posted:Um, what? The Rafale is more than a mere bomb truck like the Superbug. It's a capable fighter that handles extremely well, and in exercises has given the Typhoon all it can handle. The best praise it receives is that it's roughly on par with the Typhoon and Super Hornet in most respects. So why in the world would I want to rely on French systems that have a history of integration problems, and French support which is...less than stellar? Again, it's not a bad jet. I'm absolutely not disparaging it. But it's not the greatest thing ever. It's not even the greatest thing in Europe. Again, they'll have to price this thing very aggressively to market it. It's too advanced to rely on homemade parts and repairs like older Mirages could do. movax posted:I'm assuming it's supposed to operate in conjunction with many of the planned 200+ Su-30MKIs they have? Probably. It's not a bad choice for India, they have experience with French support and a history of working with Dassault. This gives them a good mix of multirole aircraft capable of operating together or independently (assuming the get the electronics to talk to each other properly). Edit: V Agreed. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Feb 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
They also don't have to buy a whole new weapons, ordnance, and support package for the Rafale. The Rafale will be certified for all the old Mirage/Jag ordnance, and part of the current Mirage upgrade pack is putting stuff like the MICA on them too, so they get multi use for all that. They also don't have change their already complex as poo poo data links. They also get full tech transfer (including electronics, jammers, and AESA radars), and co-production, and aren't reliant on the politically fickle US/UK. It goes on and on. The Rafale isn't the best plane in Europe at anything, but thats not really a bad thing when you are talking about a plane being purchased to be multirole. It's the perfect fit for India, even if buying F-35s would have given them more capabilities, or the super hornet faster deployment and combat proven performance, or the Mig-35 huge cost savings and commonality with the Su-30s, etc. All of the competitors had their pluses and all were good planes... but they were going with the Rafale from the start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'm absolutely not disparaging it. But it's not the greatest thing ever. I never said it was, but how can you pretend that saying "it's a bomb truck... I'd use it if I had other stuff for escorts" (which, by the way, isn't true) and "it's 25 years late to the party" (also not true, unless you think Typhoon is as well) isn't disparaging. And I don't think there's anything more disparaging than implying something is only as good a fighter as the Superbug. I would consider Typhoon, as soon as it can do anything better than Rafale. Rafale right now has a significantly superior sensor/ECM suite. Hell, it's data fusion system might be the best one you can get without buying American. Rafale is a very, very underrated fighter. There's nothing to suggest it's inferior to Typhoon in any substantial way. Well, Typhoon can supercruise, provided you don't put more than 2 small IR missiles on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Q_res posted:I never said it was, but how can you pretend that saying "it's a bomb truck... I'd use it if I had other stuff for escorts" (which, by the way, isn't true) and "it's 25 years late to the party" (also not true, unless you think Typhoon is as well) isn't disparaging. And I don't think there's anything more disparaging than implying something is only as good a fighter as the Superbug. Yes, I consider the Typhoon just as late. It was a more ambitious program, but will have to rely on upgrades to meet its potential. Frankly I'd pick a Super Hornet over either of them in most situations. quote:I would consider Typhoon, as soon as it can do anything better than Rafale. Rafale right now has a significantly superior sensor/ECM suite. Hell, it's data fusion system might be the best one you can get without buying American. Air to air, I'd pick the Typhoon over the Rafale. If I'm looking for a multirole aircraft, I'll take a proven design like the Super Hornet over an unknown that will likely be a challenge to integrate into a larger force (India is the exception, they have the infrastructure and experience with these issues). quote:Rafale is a very, very underrated fighter. There's nothing to suggest it's inferior to Typhoon in any substantial way. Well, Typhoon can supercruise, provided you don't put more than 2 small IR missiles on it. It's only underrated if you try to compare it to an F-22, which is a stupid comparison. It's a fourth-generation fighter, in every sense of the word. It's just a new design that's pretty comparable in performance to others that are out there already. Being new isn't good enough to distinguish itself on the international market. Being par isn't either. But being cheaper might be. I'm not sure what I'm saying that's annoying people here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Air to air, I'd pick the Typhoon over the Rafale. Curiosity and honest question: Why? They're so close in specs, I'd consider them a virtual dead match. Thrust vectoring? Armament?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Interoperability is a big reason. French systems are a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:But being cheaper might be. Hence why the Gripen has been kicking both the Rafale's and Eurofighter's asses in international sales.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I'll take a proven design like the Super Hornet over an unknown quote:I'm not sure what I'm saying that's annoying people here. For me, it's because you're full of poo poo, and refuse to admit it. First the Rafale was an unmaneuverable bomb truck, which is patently false. Then Typhoon is somehow a better aircraft and a more ambitious program, despite the fact you can't actually name a single reason the Typhoon is so much better. Aside from protests about French systems being a "pain in the rear end". Then it was "it's only a 4th gen fighter", even though the only person who even mentioned a 5th gen was you. And I can't for the life of me figure out why you would take a Super Hornet over one. You want a sluggish bomb truck? Take an attack aircraft with self-defense capability and stretch it two meters to try to make an air superiority fighter out of it. Thing got it's rear end kicked by Tomcats. edit: Oh, now it's only comparable performance to existing aircraft.  Yeah, that's not exactly true either. Just read up on the Rafale and stop spouting ignorant bullshit. Please. Q_res fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Feb 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
I've worked with the Rafale and the Hornet firsthand. My knowledge of the Typhoon is secondhand, I sadly don't get to participate in every Red Flag and they haven't been to Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Interoperability is a big reason. French systems are a pain in the rear end. Interoperability with what? Your statement was for A-A you'd take the Eurofighter. I assumed on A-A and dog fighting capabilities alone. I assume you weren't? If it's in the US/Canadian/UK air force, sure. India? Would the Eurofighters play nicer with their Sues or MiGs than a Rafaele?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
Q_res posted:
I never said it was unmaneuverable. What I meant about the Typhoon being more ambitious is that it was intended to provide a more complete aircraft, but due to budget cuts and overruns they had to divert much of the capability to later tranches. Yes, it's a fourth gen fighter. And there's not a drat thing about it that's any more impressive than half the other similar aircraft out there. quote:And I can't for the life of me figure out why you would take a Super Hornet over one. You want a sluggish bomb truck? Take an attack aircraft with self-defense capability and stretch it two meters to try to make an air superiority fighter out of it. Thing got it's rear end kicked by Tomcats. You tell me I'm full of poo poo then you post this? The early Hornets were everything you're claiming here, and the Super Hornet has almost no commonality because it's a fundamentally different aircraft. The engines aren't comically underpowered, it's got fantastic maneuverability instantaneous and sustained. It bleeds airspeed in BFM but it's manageable. F-15Cs wiped the floor with Tomcats often enough that the Navy guys are the ones that came up with the term "4-ship wall of death" and I've seen enough examples of Super Hornets giving the Eagles a challenge to throw the flag at your blanket statement. As much as I love the Tomcat, it no longer brought enough unique capability to justify the outrageous maintenance costs and airframe downtime compared to what the new Super Hornets brought. quote:edit: Oh, now it's only comparable performance to existing aircraft. If you want exact truth, I suggest you expand your sources of information beyond puff pieces on youtube and wikipedia articles. slidebite posted:Interoperability with what? Your statement was for A-A you'd take the Eurofighter. I assumed on A-A and dog fighting capabilities alone. I assume you weren't? I'm looking at it from a US perspective. France for some reason can't figure out how to make datalinks play nice. I don't know the reason why, and I'm sure it'll get sorted out eventually. I've never worked directly with MiGs or Sukhois. I'm not sure if Germany ever tried to get their MiG-29s to NATO communications standards, and I can't think of anyone else who would've tried anything like that. I know the Brits have comms/links figured out. So yes, in this ridiculously hypothetical scenario where we don't know pricing, numbers, specific equipment, level of manufacturer support, and tech release, I'd rather buy British or American jets. Fewer question marks. Godholio fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Feb 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
woops wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I've worked with the Rafale and the Hornet firsthand. My knowledge of the Typhoon is secondhand, I sadly don't get to participate in every Red Flag and they haven't been to Afghanistan. Come to Alaska in June, the Germans are bringing theirs!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Cessna 172 loses prop mid-flight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcxp6hD_9I
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a web page where it's easy to compare different fighter jets? I'm thinking of pictures in correct scale and comparison figures side by side and perhaps an option which planes to compare. Does it exist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
USAF has announced its cuts for the 2013 budget. 286 aircraft, 9,900 personnel. 102 A-10C 21 F-16C 27 C-5A 65 C-130 38 (all) C-27J (yes, the one they just ordered and are still building) 18 (all) RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk 11 (all) RC-26 (its a surveillance Metroliner used for scanning for drug flights) Delayed: KC-46A New Bomber F-16 Modernization Next-Gen ISR F-35 Full-Rate Delayed http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/02/02/awx_02_02_2012_p0-420642.xml
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
How much do you think they want for an A10?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
MiG-21s were going for $450,000 and the two Su-27s in the US went for $5 million a pop, so somewhere in between that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Come to Alaska in June, the Germans are bringing theirs! If I come to Alaska it'll be on my own dime. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Cygni posted:USAF has announced its cuts for the 2013 budget. 286 aircraft, 9,900 personnel. Navy's cuts will probably be right about as deep  Edit: one mystery solved. They're stopping procurement of Block 30 Global Hawks, and buying more block 40 instead. The C-130s and C-5s cut are older versions. grover fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Feb 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
grover posted:Other nations also ordered the C-27J, so the ones that were just built probably won't go to waste, but WOW, those are some deep cuts to some rather important aircraft. Are those simply older aircraft at end of life, or is air force cutting into muscle and bone here? They're probably due for the graveyard anyway due to being well past service life expectancy. bloops fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Feb 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Looks like I'll be getting a tour of ABL tomorrow (maybe) before it goes to Davis Monthom  . Not sure if I can take pictures, I'll bring a camera in case. It's apparently been stripped of anything classified so who knows. If I can I'll post a picture dump in the next few days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If I come to Alaska it'll be on my own dime. Yeah, I thought about making a RIF joke there but then I figured that awesome purple text was enough. You're welcome for that, by the way. grover posted:Other nations also ordered the C-27J, so the ones that were just built probably won't go to waste, but WOW, those are some deep cuts to some rather important aircraft. Are those simply older aircraft at end of life, or is air force cutting into muscle and bone here? As HeyEng pointed out, as far as I know those airlifter cuts should mostly be poo poo the AF has been trying to get rid of for years and has been unable to thanks in part to Congressional intervention...ancient C-5As that were never going to be upgraded under the AMP and re-engining programs and C-130Es that had literally had the wings flown off them. As the article mentions, the A-10 cuts are justified by the planned reductions in the Army's force structure, and if I was a betting man I'd say the F-16 squadron is a Guard unit that will more than likely transition to some sort of UAV. It wasn't mentioned in that article, but the F-15 FTU shutdown is  because I'm 99% sure there is only one FTU, sooo....yeah, if you're an Eagle driver (like this guy) I guess your job security just got a whole lot better. The RC-26 is a niche (and rather stupid, IMHO) role, if the war on drugs is so important let CBP or the Coast Guard pay to operate and maintain them. The C-27J was a total clusterfuck...the program itself was a knee-jerk overreaction to a unique situation (kind of similar to the MRAP thing...now there are a bunch of MRAPs that we can't even use in Afghanistan, much less in an amphibious operation or whatever), compounded by parochial service stupidity, since while it was debatable whether or not the AF truly needed the capability (the C-130 is a very versatile airframe), the case could be made that the Army could've made use of it...but once the AF had sole control the program was on borrowed time. Delaying the KC-46 is territory, just because that might be the only program in history that has been more of a clusterfuck than the JSF (and given that history includes both the TFX and A-12 programs, that is a pretty severe statement), but it isn't really a laughing matter because our KC-135s were ancient when that whole insanity train started in...2002. Jesus loving christ. The Viper SLEP is also pretty hilarious, since it's being delayed due to lack of money, but the whole reason it is happening in the first place (the JSF program going off the rails) is also a large part of the fiscal troubles the service is facing. The next-gen bomber...I fully expect this program to be pushed back every 5 years or so. We had the "2018" bomber, now we have the "Next-Generation Bomber" that is supposed to enter service sometime between 2020-2025, I expect we'll soon start hearing of the "2030" bomber. Also this is just one more hiccup in a program that has yet to have any sort of open source requirements laid out...there have been plenty of pronouncements by officials on what the bomber is going to consist of and be able to do, but the problem is that every time someone has opened their mouth on that whatever they said was completely different from the previous guy. I have no doubt that it is being funded through the black budget, and I don't expect to hear that much about it open source, but the fact that when people have talked about it their statements have been so inconsistent doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence. But at least LockMart isn't the only game in town with this one and I've heard rumors of a fixed price vs a cost-plus contract, so that's something I guess...whether or not we ever see iron on the ramp is another question entirely.And for the record we have been cutting into muscle and bone for the past decade. Since I mentioned JSF going off the rails, Bill Sweetman had another piece out today, and it's a pretty good one. His point about the cause of the cutbacks is well taken and is something I've said before: LockMart has no one but themselves to blame here...if you can't make a loving jet halfway on time and at least within sight of the original budget projections, don't be surprised when the customer gets fed up and starts cutting back. The comments about ignoring the QLR are pretty good, and the takedown of conflating DOT&E with this all knowing all powerful "testing bureaucracy" is pretty good, but my favorite part is either the naysayers bit ("may I observe that the opposite of a naysayer is a yes-man?") or this paragraph: quote:Yes, that was a different era in many ways, and full of grand experimentation. But the winners of those days (like the U-2 and B-52) were developed in years, not decades, and the titanic flops, such as airborne nuclear power or the amazing Navaho, were dragged behind the barn and shot without mercy when shown to be unnecessary or impractical, or both. And the big finish... quote:The quest for an all-stealth combat air force has lasted more than a quarter of a century and yielded 160 combat-capable aircraft and at least three major failed programs. Even if JSF goes perfectly from now on (we'll see about that) we won't be close to the goal of that quest for another ten years. The fetishization of LO is the worst thing that has happened to post-Cold War U.S. tacair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
I received Forever Flying, Bob Hoover's autobiography, from The Ferret King today. Since we're doing the book pass-along thing I just wanted to see who would like to read it after I finished it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Off topic, but is there any info on that LO helicopter the seals lost when they popped Osama?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Off topic, but is there any info on that LO helicopter the seals lost when they popped Osama? I haven't heard anything beyond the flurry of stories about it in the immediate aftermath of the raid. Probably the best one was this story by Sean Naylor (basically the only reason to read the Army Times), but whether his unnamed source was credible, full of poo poo, or somewhere in between is left up to you I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
What's with the canning of the A-10Cs? How many will be left after? Seems kind of dumb to get rid of aircraft you just paid millions to upgrade...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
grover posted:Edit: one mystery solved. They're stopping procurement of Block 30 Global Hawks, and buying more block 40 instead. The C-130s and C-5s cut are older versions. Maybe it's just an apocryphal tale I'm remembering, but weren't those C-5As only in service still because some senator didn't want his base to close and his constituents to lose jobs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Mobius1B7R posted:What's with the canning of the A-10Cs? How many will be left after? Seems kind of dumb to get rid of aircraft you just paid millions to upgrade... Per the AvWeek story, 246 will remain in the force. It seems pretty stupid on the surface, but remember that the A-10C program has been going on for a while (reached IOC in 2007), and a lot has changed since then, both fiscally and geopolitically. The AF's back is against the wall with this...reducing the number of A-10s in the fleet is the least lovely of a bunch of lovely choices, given the reduction in numbers the Army is doing. This is what happens when you take a decade long procurement holiday followed by ignoring a service for another decade because NEXT-WAR-ITIS all the while demanding that service fly combat missions the whole time (Dec 17 of last year was the first time in over TWENTY YEARS that the USAF did not fly a combat mission over Iraq)...throw in criminal stupidity (KC-X), a loving retarded concept combined with an incompetent prime contractor (JSF), and pisspoor "leadership" and you get the current situation we find ourselves in. movax posted:Maybe it's just an apocryphal tale I'm remembering, but weren't those C-5As only in service still because some senator didn't want his base to close and his constituents to lose jobs? I alluded to it above, but yes, that is absolutely correct. The AF has literally wanted to get rid of these ancient non-upgraded C-5s for almost a decade and various Congresscritters have prevented them from doing so. I guess I don't know for sure which C-5s from what base the AF is canning, and Dover has gotten the upgraded C-5Ms, but yeah...Congress definitely played a part in why those ancient C-5s are still rattling around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:32 |
|
|
Given the A-10 cutbacks, any chance of seeing an expansion of the A-29B (aka EMB 314 Super Tucano) program? I can see the A-29 going the way of the C-27J.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 18:13
|
|
