Linn.B.Halton returns to TWG with her newest novel; A Little Luck, A Lot of Faith, published by Choc Lit UK in 2016. Linn first appeared on TWG with her previous novel, you can find my review for that one here: Blog Tour! 'A Little Sugar, A Lot of Love' by Linn B Halton (@LinnBHalton) @BrookCottagebks.
I hope you enjoy my review for this book! Keep your eye out for a fab giveaway further down the page too!
redeem herself before all is lost.
At her wit's end, Kristi is driven to seek out the help of Patrick Blakeslee, a tarot card reader and psychic medium, in an attempt to make sense of the mounting panic she's feeling. But Patrick's visits have an unexpected effect on Kristi, leaving her with more questions than answers – and a life-changing decision to make.
Having LOVED Linn's previous novel; A Little Sugar, A Lot of Love, I had really high hopes for 'A Little Luck, A Lot of Faith', and I couldn't wait to get stuck into it.
When we offer advice to others, the chances of us actually listening to our own advice is probably slim to none. We can help other people with their demons but as soon as our own demon comes knocking, we ignore our own advice and pretend the demon is really…chocolate (well I do, ahem). Luckily, it's not just us readers that are like that! Take Kristi for example, a life coach who is at the top of her game when it comes to her career and offering life advice, yet when it comes to her OWN life and personal relationships, coaching herself isn't top of her agenda.
I really, really wanted to fall in love with this book straight away; but for the first chapter or two, I couldn't warm to it in a way I had hoped I would. I decided to put the book down to go and do something else for ten minutes, ensuring that I came back to the book fresh eyed. Well, that was the theory anyway. However after a mere few minutes, curiosity got the better of me and I found myself wondering what Kristi was up to, whether she was okay or whether Tom grown a pair yet. It turns out that I had warmed to the book and the storyline, it was just in a completely different way than before! From the moment the book was back in my hands, it stayed there until the words 'The End' appeared.
The issues that Kristi faced were exceptionally heart-warming and very relatable. In a matter of paragraphs she seemed to go from an icy character, to a character with a little naivety, and a lot of heart (see what I did there?). We were able to see a completely different side of her as a person, once she opened her eyes to her surroundings (and Tom). When the storyline introduced the psychic medium I really didn't know what to think as I hadn't really been in a position to think about, never had the need to. However, having never been involved with psychics in my own life, I couldn't really form an opinion on the subject having never been in contact with it. That said, I loved absorbing the quirky topic and seeing how it fit in to Kristi's life. Definitely opened my eyes to multiple possibilities, never say never!
As Linn has shown in the two novels that I have read of hers; her writing skill is one which oozes consistency and warmth. Despite the fact that Linn has written books about completely different situations, she still managed to hold my attention during the book and let her words do the talking without me feeling as though something was missing. A Little Luck, A Lot of Faith is definitely a book to curl up on the sofa with and just let Linn's enchanting words pull you into the magic that is the story.
Linn.B.Halton is the type of author whose novels shout cosy and warm. I wish I could put my finger on exactly what it is that moves me about Linn and her novels, but I cannot put it into words. All I know is that if I need a hug or if I need to feel calm, I am confident to put my trust into Linn.B.Halton's books to get just that.
If you haven't read any of Linn.B.Halton's books yet, you're severely missing out.
generations, we were always in the minority. That rather tends to shape the way you look at things and there are only two ways it can go. Either you are the one whose voice is seldom heard above the sea of testosterone around you, or you make yours the loudest voice of them all. You become the organiser; the one who leads – in short, my brothers accepted that I was in charge. Maybe it was because I had inherited the bossy gene, if such a thing exists. But, from a tender age, what I lacked in practical knowledge, I made up for with sheer common sense and the dubious ability to be believable.
confidence. At the time I didn't understand that it was something to be treated with respect and a healthy dose of reality.
was the blessing that has become a curse. When people are unsure about what to do next they look around for someone strong to advise them. In their desperation they are grateful and comforted and the person delivering the advice? Well, it's addictive and each little success elevates you in their eyes, as well as in your own. The truth is that I am supremely confident when it comes to organising other people's lives. I'm extremely proud of the fact that I can inspire others and encourage them to develop their full potential. When it comes to my own life, it's held together with the emotional equivalent of string and Blu-tack. Simply put, I'm a fraud. Money and fame go hand-in- hand and there isn't a chat show worth mentioning that hasn't featured me at some point in the last few years. My name constantly crops up around the world and even in countries like the US, Japan, and Sweden, it's instantly recognisable. Grab Life and Run With It is in its fourth season in the UK and I've just signed a contract for a further six episodes. My fan club is full of hopeful people, eager to share each of their milestones on Twitter, as they follow my celebrated Twelve Steps to Finding YOU plan.
Three signed copies of A Little Sugar, A Lot of Love paperbacks.
To enter the giveaway click: HERE.
An Amazon UK Top 100 best-selling author with A Cottage in the Country in November 2015, Under The Stars also became a best-seller in November 2016. Linn's novels have been short-listed in the UK's Festival of Romance and the eFestival of Words Book Awards. Linn won the 2013 UK Festival of Romance: Innovation in Romantic Fiction award.
I loved both these books too!


Professional Endodontics is a dental practice dedicated exclusively to endodontic, or "root canal" treatment. Dr. Milos R. Janicek is a specialists in the field of endodontics and endodontic microsurgery. We welcome you as a patient and truly appreciate the opportunity to provide you with the best and most advanced endodontic care possible.
Our goal is to provide a warm, friendly, and caring environment in which our patients can feel welcome and truly cared for. In our office you, the patient, always comes first.
The following information on this website has been designed to answer any questions you may have regarding the office, our policies, your treatment, and our doctors. We at Professional Endodontics are dedicated to not only providing you with the best state-of-the-art endodontic care in the area, but also assuring your experience with us is nothing less than first class. We look forward to welcoming you to our practice.
Dr. Janicek is proud to have been nominated and named as one of Connecticut's "Top dentists" by Connecticut Magazine every year from 2009 to 2015. Dr. Janicek has also been named as one of Rhode Island's "Top Dentists" by Rhode Island Monthly Magazine from 2011 to 2018.
For the convenience of our patients, Dr. Janicek also speaks Spanish and Czech.


You undoubtedly already know that to have a desired physical look, you need to follow a proper diet and most importantly, control your calorie intake.
Maintaining the current weight usually means that you need to eat 13 to 15 calories for every pound of your total weight. For example, a 200-pound man will need to eat somewhere between 2,800 and 3,200 calories every day.
To lose fat, you need to eat from 8 to 11 calories for every pound in your weight. That equals to 1,500 to 2,300 calories every day.
If you want to gain lean muscle, you'll need to eat a lot more – from 16 to 20 calories per pound. That translates to 3,400 to 4,000 calories every day. However, you also need to eat healthily.
Endomorph means a heavy body, with typically higher body fat levels.
Furthermore, there's rarely a person with the exact type; we are all usually a combination of the two of the three categories.
Your insulin sensitivity can be determined from specific biomarkers, like HbA1c and fasted blood glucose.
HbA1c stands for glycated hemoglobin (A1c), and it identifies the average plasma glucose concentration. For every regular person who does not have diabetes, the normal range of hemoglobin A1c is between 4% and 5.6%.
Everything above 6.5% means that you have diabetes. Furthermore, to be truly healthy, you need to strive towards being somewhere between 4.8% and 5.3%.
If you want to see what these numbers are for you, you can always get a glucose meter that can check your blood sugar.
In essence, you will have to figure out your body type and insulin sensitivity if you want to know the exact calorie intake that will work best with your physique goals. You can do that by experimenting with your calorie intake and keep records as well.
Also, if you want to know more about the role of insulin in your weight and body types, you should read the TOT Bible and get the knowledge that will help you lead a healthy and optimized life.


"Troup Factory: Archaeological Investigations of a Nineteenth Century M" by Lindsey R. Moates, Greg J. Hansen et al.
Troup Factory: Archaeological Investigations of a Nineteenth Century Mill Site in LaGrange, Georgia.
Patrick Severts, Brockington and Associates, Inc.
Troup Factory, the first cotton mill in Troup County, and the second such plant in Georgia, was established in 1846 on Flat Shoal's Creek. The mill was in operation throughout the latter half of the 19th century before being relocated to the city of LaGrange. Troup Factory sheetings and homespun were standards of excellence across a widespread area of Georgia. The purpose of this paper is to document the history of the mill site through archival research and archaeological survey. Through these means a better understanding of a once prestigious mill site was obtained in order to illuminate an important period of Georgia history.


text:
Mass. film tax credits draw movies to the area
(NECN) – Several films have been setting up their production camps in Massachusetts, and, while it's a beautiful state for a movie backdrop, there is a bottom line that's drawing Hollywood to the Hub.
As Lisa Strout, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Film Office, explains – the film tax-cut credits are drawing filmmakers to the Bay State.
There are four major feature film projects being filming in Massachusetts communities this summer.
While it's a tax cut for the filmmakers, it's also a big boost for the state's economy.
In addition to patronizing small shops and companies, production companies often rent them as film locations, and hire local technicians and drivers.
The Massachusetts Film Industry is rated in the top five of the United States.
In fact, P3 Magazine named Massachusetts one of the top 10 locations in the world
Watch Now: Made in MA "Spirited" Official Teaser Trailer
This isn't your great great great great great great grandparents' Christmas Carol (give or take). Starring Ryan Reynolds, Will Ferrell, and Octavia Spencer, Spirited is in theaters November 11 and streaming November 18 on Apple TV+
Black Panther 2, Partially Made in MA Official Teaser Trailer
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever was partially filmed in Boston, Cambridge and Worcester, Massachusetts in 2021. In Theaters November 11th
Hollywood in the Hub: How to be a movie extra
In Wahlberg movie 'Ted,' a fake bear and a real Boston

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Helmut Newton in Dialogue. Fashions and Fictions.
29 Jun 2019 – 28 Oct 2019
Museum Kampa
U Sovových mlýnů 2
www.museumkampa.cz/en/
Hellichova
Save Event: Helmut Newton in Dialogue. Fashions and Fictions.
Add to my calendar Exhibition: Helmut Newton in Dialogue. Fashions and Fictions. in Prague
Share Helmut Newton in Dialogue. Fashions and Fictions.
Share Exhibition: Helmut Newton in Dialogue. Fashions and Fictions. in Prague
The exhibition Helmut Newton in Dialogue has been prepared by Museum Kampa in cooperation with the Kicken Berlin. It exhibits photographs by the famous German-Australian photographer Helmut Newton and puts them in the context of interwar photography and compares them with the work of his contemporaries. Besides other events dedicated to the centenary of Meda Mládková, this exhibition project is in line with the exhibition programme of the Museum Kampa focusing on presenting personalities associated with lifestyle and fashion, which were crucial for Meda Mládková's design projects in Washington (for example the successful exhibitions Cecil Beaton: Photographer of Queens and Manolo Blahnik: The Art of Shoes.
Helmut Newton was born Helmut Neustaedter in Berlin, 1920. In many ways, his rather turbulent life has shadowed the history of the 20th century – because of Jewish origin he had to leave or, more precisely, he managed to leave his native Germany just on time, and via Singapore he immigrated to Australia where he continued his education and skills in photography he had begun to acquire in pre-war Germany. In Australia, he soon developed into a renowned portrait and fashion photographer. Since the early 1960s, when he started making portraits, fashion photography and nudes, he has been considered one of the most progressive and controversial photographers of the second half of the 20th century. His concept of depicting a woman in portrait and nude has changed the character of both these vast classic photographic genres. Gently oscillating between controversy, mystery and eroticism, he portrays his models as powerful, active and self-confident women in modern civilization, both in an elegant world and in places of tension or danger. He has staged ambiguous and provocative scenes that transform existing photographic genres in an innovative way. During his almost sixty-year-long professional career, Helmut Newton has brilliantly mastered the aesthetics of studio photography with careful attention to the atmosphere, composition, subtlety and detail.
Newton has shifted the meaning and role of fashion and portrait photography to more general values and expressions, changing their image forever. Working for its Australian, British and French editions for 23 years, he has become famous mainly for his photographs for Vogue magazine. In addition to fashion models, Newton also photographed famous personalities of the world of art and fashion. For example, his portraits of Karl Lagerfeld, Andy Warhol, Sigourney Weaver and Paloma Picasso are well known.
The exhibition is divided into four sections, presenting step-by-step Newton's sources of inspiration (Erwin Blumenfeld, František Drtikol, Horst P. Horst, George Hoyningen-Huene, etc.) and his most prolific creative period from 1950 to 2000. The exhibition also includes works by Newton's contemporaries (for example, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, etc.). The exhibition is crowned by the section entitled "Czech Traces", where a selection of works by Tono Stano and Gabina Fárová from the late 1980s and early 1990s is presented (they both contributed to Newton's making of several of his photographs while in Prague in 1988).
www.museumkampa.cz/vystava/helmut-newton/
www.facebook.com/museumkampa
Added byToggle
Synne Kristine
Save / follow Synne Kristine 1
Exhibiting artists
Save / follow Helmut Newton 3
This page was added 24th June 2019, 14:25 by Synne Kristine


John Hodgman-bestselling author, "The Daily Show"'s "Resident Expert," minor television celebrity, and deranged millionaire-brings us the third and final installment in his trilogy of Complete World Knowledge.
In 2005, Dutton published "The Areas of My Expertise," a handy little book of Complete World Knowledge, marked by the distinction that all of the fascinating trivia and amazing true facts were completely made up by its author, John Hodgman. At the time, Hodgman was merely a former literary agent and occasional scribbler of fake trivia. In short: a nobody.
And so he returned, crashing his Kansas farmhouse down upon the wicked witch of ignorance with "More Information Than You Require," a "New York Times" bestseller containing even more mesmerizing and essential fake trivia, including seven hundred mole-man names (and their occupations).
And now, John Hodgman completes his vision with "That Is All," the last book in a trilogy of Complete World Knowledge. Like its predecessors, "That Is All" compiles incredibly handy made-up facts into brief articles, overlong lists, and beguiling narratives on new and familiar themes. It picks up exactly where "More Information" left off-specifically, at page 596-and finally completes COMPLETE WORLD KNOWLEDGE, just in time for the return of Quetzalcoatl and the end of human history in 2012.


text:
Germany Considers Tornado Replacement
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
mxaxai
Re: RE: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement
Ozair wrote:
Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 1): I wonder if it would be reasonable to make a Typhoon variant for this.
From the article either of those options would bring forward the replacement timeframe. Both the Typhoon and the SH will be out of production by 2020 and the article indicates a replacement timeframe in the mid 2020s and possibly even as far out as mid 2030s. The Tornado also comfortably outranges a SH and in an A2G configuration would probably also outrange a similarly equipped Typhoon.
Quoting columba (Thread starter):On the other hand all European partner already have the F35 on order and won´t have any interest in developing a new aircraft.
I can't find a realistic European nation to partner with them. France are unlikely to co-develop a ground attack jet, even though something like this would be a significantly better replacement for the Mirage 2000 nuclear fleet than the Rafale. Italy, the UK and probably Spain are going F-35 and the smaller nations are either in the F-35 camp or not going to spend any money developing/buying a long range strike aircraft. Germany also has no Middle Eastern or Asian security agreements they could leverage.
An out of left field partner for co-development could be Russia...?
How much would Germany be willing to spend on R&D? Any new development would probably cost a minimum of US$20 billion before production even started and that is before we consider at least 10 years to reach production. Fiscally, it might be wiser to invest back into the Tornado and zero hour 100 airframes. That could give them another 20-25 years of service out to 2050.
65 years ago, the first nuclear bombs were brought to Germany
34 years ago, the Eurofighter company was founded
26 years ago, the first Eurofighter prototype flew in Germany
17 years ago, the first Eurofighter was delivered to Germany
8 years ago, the German government decided _not_ to order 37 further tranche 3 Eurofighters
5 years ago, the German military discovered that their Tornados would not fly forever
Today, there still hasn't been a firm decision and the 5 to 8 years required for nuclear certification are threatening the seamless transition to newer aircraft. Nor is there any long term vision for the role and equipment of the Luftwaffe beyond "keep doing what we've done for the last 70 years". Stealth capabilities will arrive decades after the technology was first employed. It's not a problem of technology. It's not an issue with funding or ability. It's really just an extreme case of lack of long term planning and inability to take decisions.
mxaxai wrote:
Stealth capabilities will arrive decades after the technology was first employed. It's not a problem of technology. It's not an issue with funding or ability. It's really just an extreme case of lack of long term planning and inability to take decisions.
Perhaps the decision is to not make a decision. Look at the state of other German military equipment... it is not hard to say this is not a lack of planning, but an intentional desire to not adequately fund and equip the military.
Honestly, if I was in charge, I might make the same choice as well because there hasn't been and won't be any consequences for it.
Since 2006, you can say Germany has saved almost 300 billion dollars by not doing anything-- and you can probably go back farther and make a claim for a much larger number.
Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement
Ozair, technically all you need is hard and soft compatibility. Anything beyond that is political. Nuclear weapons are not flied around for fun but used only in case of extreme war. In that case it does not even matter if they work 100 %.
Evidently it is all about that the planes can be remote-controlled by Americans and only by them, as they mistrust others but require others to trust them.
It might be easier to share French nukes.
YIMBY wrote:
If Germany doesn't trust the US, they might want to reconsider having ~40,000 personnel stationed there. I'm sure Poland, or another NATO country, would love to have that economic injection of American service members spending their money in the country.
You could argue that the German military is the 2nd strongest military in their own country.
Ozair
Yimby, if you want to make stuff up go right ahead, I'm interested in a discussion based on reality.
LOL, sure mate, it of course completely makes sense that the US would provide nuclear weapons under a sharing agreement to NATO countries because they mistrust others and want to control them
Not if they want to remain compliant with the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty, to which both Germany and France are signatories.
The political will is to drop the nuke sharing role and reduce the order by a lot, to just cover the promises made to NATO when it comes to SEAD.
Nick614 wrote:
I wish there was a conscious decision to "right-size" the military but I'm pretty sure that it's purely coincidence. There are simply so many dilemmas that paralyse the political side:
They want nuclear weapons for self-defence but don't want to be seen wielding WMD's for numerous reasons.
They want the USA as closest ally but don't want to get caught in one of their many military adventures nor be subject to political bullying by the US.
They want to be a key member of NATO yet disapprove of NATO (or EU) missions without a UN mandate.
They want military cooperation in Europe but don't want to release control in favor of multi-national activities nor actively support their weaker partners.
They want regional, if not global influence but don't want to risk personnel or equipment in over-seas deployments.
They want profitable weapons manufacturers but don't want to sell to anybody but their closest allies.
They want local R&D but don't want to have large experimental projects that never result in serial production (like the YF-23 or X-32 in the US).
They want highly advanced technology but not to the point that it might trigger an arms race or lead to ethical issues.
They want a force that is ready for WW3 (keep doing the same thing as the last 70 years...) but can't tell against whom so can only justify the minimum funding to maintain credible self-defence forces.
I could go on. The government is walking a wriggling line that eventually gets them nowhere; here to there and back here by tomorrow. Not as a secret plan but because they only ever fight the "monster of the week".
Other countries have it easier because they consciously desire to be a regional or global power (USA, Australia, China, Qatar), see themselves as an integral part of an alliance with all its pros and cons (Netherlands, Norway, Belgium) or consciously stay out of international conflicts and focus on self-defence (Korea, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden). Germany simply wants a little bit of everything.
This is reality. Nuclear war is, fortunately, so far only imagination of war lunatics.
When you laugh I know I am right.
What is the difference? Other than Trump being the ultimate judge?
Kiwirob
What would be the difference it they started borrowing French nukes, borrowing is borrowing, who you are borrowing them off shouldn't make a difference?
So the US can lend nuclear weapons out but France can't is that what you are saying?
vr773 wrote:
The US has a very clear financial interest in a slow process to certify the Eurofighter.
Using some common sense, let us suggest that tomorrow Germany announces that they are ordering an additional 90 Eurofighters to replace the Tornado and will start the formal certification process with the US for nuclear weapon carriage. The competition is over and there is no incentive for the US to delay certification other than sour grapes and frankly that is silly to even suggest.
The delay is designed to prevent this very outcome. You're saying they can't try to prevent something because "what if it doesn't work?". That's the opposite of common sense.
That is wrong, at least in the opinion of the German parliament.
They studied this very issue in 2017 (pdf download here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... aHWZjVTSJc) and concluded that nuclear sharing between any two countries is perfectly legal as long as the original owner of the weapons remains fully in control over their use. It would also not be illegal for Germany to financially or technologically support a country that already owns nuclear weapons. The report notes, though, that both the French and British weapons are mostly deployed on submarines and would thus be difficult to share with Germany (purely due to the lack of suitable delivery platforms). Further, France, the UK and the USA would be obliged to support NATO and, in the case of France, fellow EU members if they were under attack; such support can also include nuclear weapons. Thus, the report concludes that Germany has nothing to gain from nuclear sharing with France or the UK. It does not discuss the pros and cons of maintaining the current arrangement with the USA.
The very low chance of nuclear war occurring does not remove the requirement to certify weapons for platforms and follow established procedures for that process, procedures that literally take years, no matter if it is a US or foreign airframe. There is no short cut to nuclear certification.
When I laugh I know ten thousand others are as well…
It is beyond comprehension that you can claim that a nation sharing the most powerful destructive force is mistrustful of others. If they are so mistrustful then why would they even bother sharing, why not just base weapons back in their own country, or on their own platforms only. Your claim literally makes no sense…
Kiwirob wrote:
The NPT factored in the existing NATO nuclear sharing, including knowledge by the Soviet Union of the sharing agreements.
They studied this very issue in 2017 (pdf download here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... aHWZjVTSJc) and concluded that nuclear sharing between any two countries is perfectly legal as long as the original owner of the weapons remains fully in control over their use. It would also not be illegal for Germany to financially or technologically support a country that already owns nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately I do not read German so will take your word for the content but I also don't agree with the claim. Reading the text of the treaty, https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text , I believe that it is clear that outside of agreements that existing when the treaty was signed the subsequent sharing of nuclear weapons is in violation.
For example Article One speaks directly to France.
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage,
or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Article Two speaks directly to Germany.
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices.
The only reason the US can share with NATO is because NATO nuclear sharing existed before the treaty was signed.
The report notes, though, that both the French and British weapons are mostly deployed on submarines and would thus be difficult to share with Germany (purely due to the lack of suitable delivery platforms).
The part of the report I agree with. France has few air launched weapons remaining and plans to eventually remove them entirely from the inventory while the UK has now only sea based weapons.
No it has nothing to do with it not working, no one is suggesting nor has suggested that the Eurofighter is not compatible with nuclear delivery systems. In support of my position and basic common sense, review comments made by the head of the Eurofighter program in 2018.
Volker Paltzo, chief executive of Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH, told reporters at the ILA Berlin Air Show that U.S. certification was required, but said he was confident Eurofighter could take over the roles of the Tornado.
"This is a subject where we would not expect the U.S. to leverage over Eurofighter in this competition," he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKBN1HW13J
So the head of Eurofighter has that opinion. To further support the position, this DefenseNews article stated the time for Eurofighter certification was an additional three to five years over the SH.
Getting the Eurofighter approved for that mission would take between three and five years longer than the F-18, which is considered a nuclear weapons-capable aircraft in the U.S. military, the newspaper reported.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... rofighter/
No one has said the Eurofighter cannot be certified but only that it will take longer than the SH. Should that be a surprise to anyone? No as the SH is an American aircraft built by a company that has previously built, operated and maintains nuclear weapons delivery platforms and already has the systems, procedures, policies, ICT infrastructure etc in place to handle nuclear integration work.
Is it playing politics? The head of Eurofighter didn't think so.
Again, all Germany has to do is announce the Eurofighter wins the competition and then request certification. Delaying that certification impacts NATO capability and that is something the US Military, who actually does the nuclear certification work, does not want. To claim that the US is playing politics by throwing out a longer number just to muddy the decision is hearsay and not based on any factual or reasonable analysis nor does any source material support it. Airbus haven't come out and cried foul to the longer certification claim either.
Let us also be clear that nuclear delivery is likely not a great determiner for who wins this competition, nor actually is capability, as the F-35 is already more capable than both other options and will be certified for nuclear use earlier but has been excluded for political/industrial reasons.
The NPT does not factor in nuclear sharing.
Both the Non-Aligned Movement and critics within NATO believe that NATO's nuclear sharing violates Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibit the transfer and the acceptance of direct or indirect control, respectively, over nuclear weapons.
So if the US can circumvent the NPT so can France. And then there is KSA and Pakistan.
The study explains its point as follows:
"It is acknowledged that non-nuclear-weapon states may not receive or manufacture nuclear weapons, nor may nuclear-weapon states transfer weapons or technology & knowledge on how to build nuclear weapons. However, this does not explicitly forbid "two-key" agreements, where the nuclear-weapon state (i. e. the owner) and the state on whose territory the weapons are based in can only jointly control these weapons (i. e. using the weapons without permission by the owner is impossible). Key point being that the non-nuclear state does not acquire the sole control over the weapons (which would be forbidden per the NPT) nor is transferred ownership of the weapons.
Nuclear-weapon states may base their weapons in any state as long as ownership and sole control are not transferred to a non-nuclear state."
Transfer of control like this is okay: Nuclear-weapon state --> Nuclear-weapon state AND non-nuclear-weapon state (i. e. only both combined can use them)
But not this: Nuclear-weapon state --> Non-nuclear-weapon state
Nor this: Nuclear-weapon state --> Nuclear-weapon state OR non-nuclear-weapon state (i. e. any of the two could use them)
It then goes on:
"The NPT does not forbid joint consultation, planning or exercises that concern nuclear defence of any members of defence treaties. It also does not forbid non-nuclear-weapon states to assist nuclear-weapon states technologically or financially in the development and maintenance of their nuclear arsenal (as long as the ownership and control of the weapons remains with the nuclear-weapon state. Even further, non-nuclear-weapon states could legally assist other non-nuclear-weapon states in acquiring or manufacturing nuclear weapons (although the latter state would violate the treaty)."
In other words, support in this direction is okay: Non-nuclear-weapon state --> any other state
But this is not: Nuclear-weapon state --> Non-nuclear-weapon state
"The intention of the NPT was and is the eventual abolishment of nuclear weapons. It does not, however, contain the obligation to abolish nuclear weapons entirely. Both the USA, the Soviet Union and other nuclear-weapon states that signed the treaty have been very careful to follow the exact wording of the treaty. Any action that is not explicitly forbidden by the treaty is generally considered to be allowed, including ownership, development, modernisation and manufacturing of nuclear weapons by existing nuclear-weapon states."
Rob give a source link when quoting something please.
The NPT factored in NATO Nuclear sharing within the context of when it was agreed to. While the treaty language does not state as such signers of the treaty understood NATO nuclear sharing existed and pre-dates the NPT.
Are there groups that dispute that legal position? Of course. Is NATO Nuclear sharing still in existence? Yes.
Of course there is. If there is a war, you use whatever weapons and platforms you have without waiting for certifications. Many countries do that.
Show me the evidence.
You yourself quote that the Non-Proliferation treaty requires US not to trust the nuclear weapons on others. (Though we know what Trump cares about international treaties, so this may be a non-argument.)
Anyway, US mistrusting Germany (Trump - Merkel) is a fact. See e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-donald-tru ... a-50126743
Has US promised to give the source code of F-35 to its users?
And finally: Give one scientifically sound, non political argument why it takes 10 years to certify a more than 10-years old platform for a more than 10-years old nuclear bomb. You have not even tried so far.
Nobody wants to sign a contract, as with the next elections it is very likely that the Greens will be in the government and they would kill this order quickly and drop the nuke sharing role as well.
ThePointblank
Certification also involves testing and development to ensure compatibility. Modern weapons these days are incredibly computer reliant, and they don't often speak to each other unless hardware or software modifications are made so they do interface with each other.
Then, a whole round of testing is required to ensure said changes don't affect safety or reliability of both platforms, and if issues are discovered, they need to be address.
1. The NPT Treaty does not permit recognized nuclear states (recognized as being the US, France, the UK, China, and Russia) to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to any recipient or in any way assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state in the manufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon, nor does it permit the signatory non-nuclear states to acquire or exercise control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and not to seek or receive assistance in the manufacture of such devices.
Nuclear sharing is a technical way around this; the weapons are still under the custody and control of the US, and US military personnel are required to maintain, arm, and equip the weapons onto the host country's aircraft, until there is a nuclear war; then the weapons are released for use.
2. Source codes for aircraft are a red herring.
Unless you intend on seriously making deep modifications to the hardware and software of the aircraft, by which time, you probably already involved and have permission from the OEM to begin with, the majority of users do not need access to source codes. With the F-35, you can do a lot of the integration stuff without having to touch the source code; the aircraft was built with software interfaces that communicate using a common standard so all the user has to worry about is ensuring that whatever they wanted to hang off the aircraft is developed to communicate with the standard, and conduct stores testing to ensure that the weapons can be operated safely from the aircraft.
3. Because the old bomb is on it's way out and being replaced by a new variant, which has a totally different electronic interface compared to the old weapon. The new B61 Mod 12 is a lower yield, GPS guided munition, which requires a new computer interface in order to fully take advantage of all of it's capabilities.
Basically, whatever aircraft Germany picks needs testing and development so the aircraft can safely drop the bombs at all, as well as developing appropriate mission systems and software to enable this capability under various different attack parameters.
In addition, engineers would have to find ways to install the necessary systems and linkages so that the pilot can arm the weapon in flight. Each one of the bombs has a so-called "Permissive Action Link," or PAL, that prevents the warhead from functioning until an individual puts in a specific code.
While the US has been actively working on ensuring their aircraft can carry and operate the B61's, the Germans haven't made up their mind regarding which direction they want to take. That's what's causing the delays; the foot dragging on the part of the Germans. If the Germans decide today that they want a specific aircraft to carry the weapons, then work can begin immediately to integrate the bombs onto that aircraft, or if they choose an American aircraft for the job, the aircraft will come with the hardware and software to do it.
Yimby, is there a war going on that requires a rush on the nuclear certification of the Eurofighter? The answer to that is of course no. That is why the Eurofighter, and the SH, will take 5 and likely 8 years respectively to be certified for nuclear delivery.
No Yimby I did not say that. Additionally, please do not bring Trump in to this argument. He has nothing to do with this discussion.
This has nothing to do with Trump. Those timeframes would have been the same had Obama still been president because neither Obama or trump had anything to do with the timeline, it would have come directly from the US Agency tasked with certifying the aircraft.
What does this have to do with the discussion? It has nothing to do with NATO nuclear sharing and clearly US has already integrated nuclear weapons onto a non US platform with the Tornado…
I have provided the USAF document that details the certification process. If you would like to review that, I know reading source documents isn't your strong point, and tell me how it is not a multi-year process then I am happy to discuss this further with you.
Additionally no one has said ten years, what has been said is three to five years longer than the SH. Given the SH is likely already going through the process right now and expects to come out of it by 2025 all that has been started is a timeframe between 2028 and 2030 is likely. As already stated, that timeframe means nothing until Germany actually requests integration work to begin, so far they have not done so. That integration work would be at the cost of the German Government and would likely be over US$1 billion dollars. Is it any surprise then that Germany hasn't made the decision yet...
bikerthai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
But out of seemingly nowhere Europe has suffered from major tyrants. Just two examples; who knew who Napoleon was in 1790 or who Hitler was as late as 1928?
In that case, we do not want Germany to have the F-35 just in case somehow Germany becomes a tyrant state.
Too late.
That baby has been drowned already. the US has the F-35 and is ....
Do not reverse again. You are actively and loudly defending the very long process and have to give justifications. If you cannot explain it, you do not understand it.
And remember: protocols, procedures, agreements and treaties are outcomes of politics. We need to know the scientifically justifiable reasons behind those. I have been long enough in military to know that the military tend to do things the hard and long way just because of traditions, stubbornness, impressions and showing power.
ThePointblank wrote:
Then, why doesn't the certification of Tornado expire? Or does it? The age itself poses already risks.
The bomb can still be used as a dumb bomb, but you loose the point of a low-yield, GPS guided nuclear bomb.
And the existing stockpile of bombs are already getting very old, and need replacement; the B61 Mod 12 is the replacement for all existing US tactical nukes. Basically, there are two systems that are starting to age out; the German Tornado fleet, and the US's European stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons.
The certification doesn't expire but the weapon that the certification exits for will be removed from service. The B61s are all very old already and the Mod 12 is an upgrade and life extension of previous B61 weapons.
LOL, Yimby how am I reversing and why do I need to explain why it will take as long as it does? I am flattered that you think I gave the time frames for integration and certification but sadly I did not, I had nothing to do with the process or estimation. That was the US Military and communicated to the German Government via the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
I do understand the difficulties of the process though, as well as how sensitive the US, as are all countries with nuclear weapons, to safe guarding them and therefore why such a long, detailed and thorough process is used. You obviously don't get the sensitivities that are associated with nuclear weapons but that is okay, I have found that to be par for the course...
Planeflyer
Just a guess but In not choosing the F35 I think Germany has also decided they will remove themselves from the current nuclear sharing agreement.
At the risk of trolling to some I'm sure someone in the German decision making chain has posed the following question;why carry a nuke on a plane that has huge chance of being downed over your own territory?
bikerthai
Maybe we are looking at it all wrong. The reason why there was a need for tactical nukes in Germany is the fear of Europe being over run in he first two weeks of the war.
Now with a larger buffer and a weaker Russia without the Eastern Block and the ability to deploy tactical nukes from long range bombers, it may justify Germany to revise the the agreement and go for the non nuke F-35 instead. Or just proceed with the new fighter and the long certification process knowing there will be a gap and someone else will have to fill it - AKA pay for a rotation of US aircraft by taking up additional responsibility some where else.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
Show that you understand by explaining. It is empty talk to claim understanding without any evidence than lolling others.
To start, describe the chain of serial tests that takes so much time and cannot be boosted by parallel tests. Papers circulating unnecessarily between officers is just bad management and not sensitivity, though it may give a false impression of thorough work.
The nuclear bombs are not to be used for missions in Iran, Iraq or likes. They were placed there to be used in the extreme case, if the Soviet Union makes a massive attack against Germany and there is no other way to stop the attack. In that case millions of people are already dyeing and tens of millions under threat of dying.
Today's Russia is weak and far apart (though definitively strong enough for self defence), but I recognize that you may want to prepare for any new incarnation of the Soviet Union in 20 years or so.
The true risk associated with the nuclear bomb is that the pilot goes rogue and drops the bomb over the own base. That is to be prevented by double and triple checks and there should be sufficient intelligence in the bomb itself not to blow up in the wrong place. The risk that the plane/bomb misses the target is bearable (relatively) and you may consider it much more risky of not having nukes due to overcomplicated certification process. The primary purpose of nuclear weapons is anyway not to use them, ever. It is the most important to signal that they are there and can be used by any available platform in the case of WW3. (Not that I particularly endorse nuclear weapons anywhere)
Yimby first let me be very clear. I do not understand every step of the process and, other than the source document I posted which you obviously still haven't read, I doubt the full process is available on the internet. Additionally, I never once claimed that I knew every step of the process for nuclear certification. What I have stated time and again is that it is a long process. This should be obvious as evidenced by the fact the certification of the Boeing SH, an American aircraft, still takes at least five years and hence I can understand why Airbus, with no previous experience with nuclear certification, will take longer to step through the process than Boeing. Boeing has been through this process multiple times and has the staff, knowledge, access, permissions, ICT infrastructure etc already established, Airbus has not done it even once.
Even if I knew each minute step of the process, what value is there in me explaining the process to you. I cannot adjust the process, it isn't mine. If I explain the process and you don't believe it should take as long as it does who cares, you don't get a say in how long the process is either. The process belongs to the US Government/Military and they determine how long it is going to take. If there is too much administration for you or you think things can be done in parallel, tough luck, it won't make a single difference to the timeframe.
The true risk associated with the nuclear bomb is that ....
The primary purpose of nuclear weapons is anyway not to use them, ever.
The true risk of nuclear weapons is that they might blow up in peacetime. That must not happen, ever.
It is conceivable that aircraft take off equipped with nuclear weapons in peacetime, in times of high alertness but without war. An accidentally dropped nuke would be a disaster far beyond the recent airliner shootdowns or any terrorist attack. Worst case, the enemy detects an explosion, mistakenly thinks they are under attack and launches a nuclear counter-attack.
Beyond that, any weapon must be integrated into the aircrafts fire control system and also may not endanger the aircraft when it is released. Certification is a fairly long process for non-nuclear weapons already and I doubt that nuclear weapons are designed with easy & flexible integration in mind. The number of people who can get the required clearances is probably low. Germany is not at war, the USA is not at war and there is no immediate threat. 5-7 years seems fairly reasonable.
The weapon will only explode if it is activated. It could be carried and dropped multiple times from great heights and it would not initiate the nuclear chain reaction, they are designed specifically with fail safes for these types of scenarios.
Saying that, it doesn't mean that accidents haven't happened and the worst of these resulted in dirty bombs where the conventional explosive around the fissile material spreads radioactive material but does not result in an accidental nuclear detonation. The dirty bomb risk has been mitigated further as new designs have emerged. An old article, 1990, from the NY Times that goes into some high level detail, https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/24/us/a ... small.html
Sanity prevails...
Nuclear bombs carried by aircraft have multiple layers of security to prevent accidental use and detonation.
Generally, nuclear bombs in use by the US have what's called a Permissive Action Link, or PAL. PALs are, broadly, safety devices to prevent unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon, the exact specifics of which are classified. The PAL is activated through use of the Aircraft Monitoring and Control (AMAC) systems installed on the aircraft, which communicates with the bomb regarding the arming sequence.
The current deployed generation of bombs use a fairly sophisticated PAL, which requires a 12 digit access code to be entered by the pilot which is issued only when the bomb is to be used on a mission. The pilot can only enter the access code a small number of times incorrectly before the bomb fries the electronic circuits, effectively rendering the bomb inert, until the bomb is returned to depot for a technician to repair.
Plus, the current inventory of free-fall nuclear bombs also incorporate insensitive explosives to prevent accidental detonation, and have incorporated Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety (ENDS) features that better protected the bombs from physical shocks, extreme temperatures, electromagnetic interference, and any other "abnormal conditions." At its most basic, an ENDS setup isolates the portions of the warhead that are essential for its functioning inside a shell that keeps out any unwanted "energy."
These are just some of the many physical security features on today's American nuclear bombs to prevent accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear bomb. The Russians, French and Chinese have similar systems installed in their weapons as well.
Commentary from the German Defence Minister with an expectation that the decision will be made in March. Assume that decision will be released and if there is an impending discussion being had on nuclear sharing then I expect the Eurofighter remains the favourite to win the selection.
As with the F-35, it appears that Airbus and France are continuing to apply pressure against selection an American aircraft and the signal this sends for future FCAS work.
Germany's to-do list: A spring of (in)decisions is brewing in Berlin
Replacing Germany's fleet of aging Tornado aircraft is a can of worms like no other. That's because a portion of the fleet is assigned to carry American nuclear-tipped gravity bombs into Russia in the event of a major war. Though largely symbolic, the idea of German pilots using German aircraft to deliver American nukes is something of a quiet cornerstone of trans-Atlantic relations. People here don't like to talk about it much, but the effect is significant.
The Tornado aircraft are getting old, which means the nuclear weapons will soon need a new ride. And this is where things get even trickier: Each of the replacement candidates can satisfy one requirement of Berlin's decision-making calculus, but not all of them.
Boeing's F-18 fighter jet would represent a political commitment to the United States as the guarantor of nuclear deterrence. In such a scenario, the Pentagon presumably would lean forward to quickly sort out the requisite modifications and certifications, which is no small matter when it comes to nuclear weapons employment.
The Airbus-made Eurofighter, on the other hand, would dovetail with plans by Germany and France to build the Future Combat Air System — and prop up local industry at the same time. Airbus said it would consider a pick of the F-18 as a death knell for the futuristic program, a view that France is reportedly also pushing behind the scenes.
At the same time, there is the question of the U.S. government's willingness to approve a European aircraft for the most sensitive of missions, especially when the Trump administration already feels cheated by the continent on defense and trade.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, once in the running, is not expected to make a return to the competition, the German Defence Ministry spokeswoman told Defense News.
Kramp-Karrenbauer said she will decide by the end of March.
Speaking at Munich, she also hinted at a new round of fundamental discussions about the nuclear-sharing mission in general.
"That is the political dimension of the decision that we have to debate within the coalition," she said. "I want to have that debate relatively quickly, as we need clarity."
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich- ... in-berlin/
The NPT factored in the existing NATO nuclear sharing, including knowledge by the Soviet Union of the sharing agreements. .
please quote where it "factors that in".... because it does not, not with a single peep.
It doesn´t. The US position is that the nukes only get supplied to allies at war, and that the NPT is void by that point.
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
bully707
The German Airforce is said to split its Tornado replacement order three ways...
90 Eurofighters for the fighter/bomber role, Recce and as a repalcement for the Tranche 1 Eurofighters.
30 Boeing F-18 Super Hornets for the 33rd TFW in Buechel to be able to carry the special ordnance stored there and 15 F-18G Growler.
Link in German only: https://www.aero.de/news-34679/Splitloe ... folge.html
"That's the good thing about the 707...it can do anything, but read!" Joe Patroni, Airport '70
bully707 wrote:
Thanks for posting the link, that is a very interesting article and highlights a couple of decisions. First that the nuclear mission isn't going away, at least from this government, and also that with the acquisition of the 15 Growler aircraft where that puts Airbus's plans for the EW version of the Eurofighter. I expect the SH buy will be for two seat aircraft and that will role many of the current rear seat aircraft across to that platform. By my read of the google translated text it isn't official yet but is moving through the process. The article also insinuates how this acquisition may impact the Airbus campaign to sell Eurofighters but given the nuclear requirement that is specific to this procurement I doubt it will have impact on Finland, Spain or the Swiss.
In general a reasonable compromise and low risk strategy for Tornado replacement.
angad84
I still don't get it. If you're going to pay NRC (and I get that they're not quite in the same ballpark) wouldn't it be better to pick 30 of any aircraft already certified for B61, and spend the NRE on a Typhoon ECR?
The cost of 15 Growlers, plus NRC of B61 SHornet cert would go a long way in paying for an EW Typhoon, unless the Eurofighter consortium is really charging bonkers money. And lets not forget an ECR Typhoon would go a long way, with other partner nations, as well as export customers (I could see the existing Middle East customers happy to take ECR mods or new builds).
angad84 wrote:
If we went on the technicality of it the only US fighter aircraft in production and nuclear certified is the F-15E. The F-35 has yet to be certified, expected in a couple of years, and the SH was never going to be certified until the mid 2020s anyway. Given the intent is to start the fleet replacement from 2025 I don't see the nuclear certification timeframe as an issue. More important to get the aircraft in and to IOC with conventional weapons while the certification happens. With the 90 Eurofighters the rest of the Tornado fleet can be replaced as the new aircraft arrive and the nuclear Tornado can remain until the SH is ready to take over.
The certification of the SH was going to happen anyway so unlikely Germany has to fund those costs.
I think the difference with Growler over an EW Eurofighter is less about the airframe (which still required a few mods such as adding wet stations forward) and more about the pods. Europe doesn't have a current stand-off jamming pod like the NGJ and to fund that big a development and then future sustainment, for a small expected fleet size, probably isn't cost efficient. The Growler NGJ combo will likely be in service for the next 25+ years and Germany can plug into the FMS program same as Australia.
From this link you can see the EW Eurofighter timeframe would be tight for reaching the same capability that a Growler will provide a lot sooner
The company foresees a initial Escort Jamming capability starting from 2026, compatible with the Luftwaffe plans: 2019 saw the launch of the Escort Jammer Pod and of the Eurofighter ECR version, the coming years seeing the development of the stand-off technologies to be used in the pod, the prototype of the pod being then integrated into the Eurofighter to get to the initial capability, 2029 being the forecast date for the LTE version initial capability that will bridge the Luftwaffe towards the FCAS.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/the-eurofigh ... ck-concept
I cannot see a large export market for a ECR Eurofighter and it hasn't, as far as we are aware, been offered to any of the current competitions (which makes sense because it isn't a funded development and neither Finland or Switzerland have the funding for Eurofighter dev for their own purposes). Who would you see interested in that capability?
After the Corona crisis there will be no money for any new plane, so the debate is mute.
Oh, don't get me wrong, from a pure value perspective, the SH-EFT split makes perfect sense. But it's also not hard to justify supporting local industry, european bonhomie, etc etc by working out a way to keep funding Eurofighter. Clearly they don't agree with me, or think that 90 EFTs is plenty of support
As for the ECR Typhoon -- like I said, I see the Middle East customers as easy targets. It's too late for the Indian competition, but I can assure you non-US EW capability like that would interest Delhi as well.
The production rate in Germany's FAL has been low, around 8 - 10 jets per year are planned AFAIK but it's been lower for the past years. So a top-up order of 90 aircraft ensures production for 9 - 11 more years, at which point FCAS should be in the inital stages of production.
Also note that the older Eurofighters (except Tranche 1) and Tornados will undergo continuous refit and heavy maintenance programs, which will add work to keep the workshops busy. Interestingly, the older (Tranche 2, 3a) Eurofighters are scheduled to receive AESA radars before the newly ordered ones (Tranche 4) (from 2022 and 2024 onwards, respectively).
Regarding export of ECR Typhoons, I really don't see any European government willing to export such advanced technology to some rather questionable customers. Even the much more benign A400M is being blocked from export to Saudi-Arabia. (Also, the UK have been the leading project partner for EF sales to the middle east, not Germany, and the UK haven't shown much interest in an ECR Typhoon)
744SPX
If things get really bad financially with Covid19 and they need to buy more time, I suppose they could upgrade the Tornado's with EJ200's and AESA radar similar to what was proposed back in '88 -assuming there is still enough life left in the frames to make it worth it...
744SPX wrote:
That's really not an option (anymore). Fitting new engines is a 3-4 year process, minimum, and doesn't change the fact that other components are running out of life. Even without any upgrades to the Tornado, the maintenance bill to keep the fleet active beyond 2025 is basically equal to buying and operating a new replacement aircraft.
If money does become an issue, the only way is to shrink the fleet. You could delay Tornado retirement cheaply by cannibalising parts of the fleet and flying less with the remaining aircraft. Or you could accept that the new order won't be a one-for-one replacement. Given the looming deadline for the Tornados, I'd expect other land- or sea-based defense projects to take cuts before the Tornado replacement does.
stratable
This article (in German only) states that a preliminary decision has been made to replace the Tornado with up to 90 Typhoons and 45 F-18 from 2025 onward .
The final decision should be announced after the Easter break, Parliament will be informed first.
Edit: Just saw that I skipped over post #1387 up there - so this is old news
Article also states that the Federal Audit Office was not pleased with the significant increase in maintenance costs for the Tornado fleet, that the fleet was only partially combat ready (maintenance and outdated equipment) and that more reliability issues would occur until successor aircraft are fully integrated into Luftwaffe operations.
https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland ... chnungshof
A313 319/20/21 332/3 343 359 B734/8 742/4/4M 752/3 763ER 772/E/W 787-8/-9 CRJ900 CS300 ERJ-145 F70 Q100/300/400
stratable wrote:
Perhaps the more interesting, new piece of information is the expected cost of delaying replacement beyond 2025. If the successor aircraft arrives in 2030, it will cost an additional 7.7 billion €. If they wait until 2035, the cost is increased to 10.2 billion €. You can get a lot of new aircraft for that money, see the Finnish competition with a hard cap at 10 billion € for ~64 aircraft including training, weapons and maintenance.
Decision delayed until "some time after Easter". SPD claims they haven't seen a solid justification for the f-18 purchase yet:
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inl ... 18928.html
Could result in a a political fight over nuclear sharing.
Sun Apr 12, 2020 6:16 am
Australia went through a similar sustainment issue with the F-111. The justification for the 6 billion acquisition of the SH was that it was cost neutral with maintaining and upgrading the F-111 over a ten year timeframe. I expect the Tornado has the same sustainment issue and the replacement may loss a little bit of range but significantly improves its availability and self defence capabilities.
SuperiorPilotMe
I too am well aware that marijuana is an effective treatment for anxiety during these times, but thanks for demonstrating that cognitive side effects are still in place.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
Users browsing this forum: Kiwirob and 10 guests


The capability to share your individual images with your friends as well as family members is the most favored function of Facebook As a result a number of us have several photo albums in our Facebook accounts. Facebook Delete Photo: Nevertheless as high as we use Facebook, we are still totally unaware of the number of of its most obvious features work. The site has countless choices and attributes and also subsequently there are plenty of usability concerns with lots of excellent choices being hidden so well that you never ever understand they exist.
It's important to note that Facebook will allow you "hide" pictures to make sure that just you can see them, yet that isn't the like removing them. To remove the picture from the actual website, follow these actions.
- Click on "Photos" on the left-hand side of Facebook. This will take you to a web page of pictures of on your own, images you have actually posted, and also albums. Click "Photos" near the top of the page.
- Facebook will take you to a collection of all photos you have actually published, as a collection of smaller sized pictures called "thumbnails" that permit you to easily recognize which picture is which. Locate the image you wish to remove by scrolling via until you spot it.
- Float your computer mouse cursor over the thumbnail. A pencil icon will show up in the top right-hand man corner of the thumbnail. Click on it as well as it will open a menu. Select Delete This Photo" You'll be asked to validate that you wished to eliminate this picture. Click Confirm and also it's gone.
Removing photos from social media networks is normally a great way to eliminate them from search results page, but it's feasible others have actually downloaded and install the images as well as might re-post them or otherwise share them. You may have limited options if pictures you've eliminated have appeared online.


last September15th Martino Pedrozzi made the opening lecture for the exhibition Import Ticino_Architecture and Territory in Coac Tarragona. It was the first roaming of this exhibition that was shown in Barcelona in October 2013. After the opening, there was a dinner in barhaus, where young local architects could discuss with Martino and the curators about the role of new generations in Ticino.


text:
Thanks you for visiting Ticket Triangle! We have a one of the largest selections of South Carolina State Bulldogs sporting event tickets with some of the lowest prices on the Internet. If you would like to attend a sporting event tour or to view sporting event schedules and information, Ticket Triangle is the place to visit. We have been in business and online since 2005 and have served hundreds of thousands of customers.
South Carolina State Bulldogs Tickets
South Carolina State Bulldogs vs. Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks 01/20/2020 7:30PM Orangeburg, SC Hammond Middleton Memorial Center View Tickets
Norfolk State Spartans vs. South Carolina State Bulldogs 01/25/2020 6:30PM Norfolk, VA Echols Hall View Tickets
South Carolina State Bulldogs vs. Bethune-Cookman Wildcats 01/27/2020 7:30PM Orangeburg, SC Hammond Middleton Memorial Center View Tickets
South Carolina State Bulldogs vs. Delaware State Hornets 02/10/2020 7:30PM Orangeburg, SC Hammond Middleton Memorial Center View Tickets
South Carolina State Bulldogs vs. Coppin State Eagles 02/15/2020 4:00PM Orangeburg, SC Hammond Middleton Memorial Center View Tickets
South Carolina State Bulldogs vs. Morgan State Bears 02/17/2020 7:30PM Orangeburg, SC Hammond Middleton Memorial Center View Tickets
Bethune-Cookman Wildcats Women's Basketball vs. South Carolina State Bulldogs 02/22/2020 2:00PM Daytona Beach, FL Moore Gymnasium View Tickets
Bethune-Cookman Wildcats vs. South Carolina State Bulldogs 02/22/2020 4:00PM Daytona Beach, FL Moore Gymnasium View Tickets
Florida A&M Rattlers vs. South Carolina State Bulldogs 02/24/2020 8:00PM Tallahassee, FL Al Lawson Center View Tickets
South Carolina State Bulldogs vs. North Carolina Central Eagles 02/29/2020 4:00PM Orangeburg, SC Hammond Middleton Memorial Center View Tickets
South Carolina State Bulldogs vs. North Carolina A&T Aggies 03/02/2020 7:30PM Orangeburg, SC Hammond Middleton Memorial Center View Tickets
MEAC & SWAC Challenge: Grambling State Tigers vs. South Carolina State Bulldogs 09/06/2020 3:30AM Atlanta, GA Georgia State Stadium View Tickets
Wofford Terriers vs. South Carolina State Bulldogs 10/03/2020 3:30AM Spartanburg, SC Gibbs Stadium View Tickets
Tough to find sporting event tickets and seats for many other world tour sporting event or event are offered here. We sell some of the best seats available, including front row and sold out tickets, and many of our tickets are cheap, inexpensive and a good bargain. Many of the tickets we sell are for sold out South Carolina State Bulldogs sporting event tickets. Order your discount tickets through the Ticket Triangle website any time.


Welcome to Luke Strothman Photography, a premier choice in Wedding Photographers among Illinois.
Yorkville photographer, Luke Strothman has been an avid photographer since the early days of 2010. Luke has a funny, outgoing, and determined personality. Luke has a special personality, he is very driven and willing to bring out the best in people. Luke works hard in making sure the memories he delivers are treasured forever.
Luke began as more of a landscape photographer in his early days of 2010 eventually acquiring a strong passion for Portraits, Fashion, and Wedding Photography.
From landscapes to newborns Luke has shot through almost every situation imaginable. He can meet your needs as a photographer no matter the situation. From newborns, seniors, sports, fashion, weddings, and boudoir, Luke has a strong knowledge in all of these categories.
Reviews don't lie. A lot of photographers are hesitant when it comes to unlocking the review feature on their website or Facebook page. Luke feels that having reviews on his work is a truthful and honest way for his clients to express their feelings on the services Luke provided. He encourages all future & past clients to read or leave a review about the services he performed! His Facebook page can be found here, and his Google page can be found here. Also, please check us out on Wedding Wire, here.
If you're looking for a photographer who is willing to work with you, listen to you, and deliver what you are imagining, give Luke a call! He is more than happy to reassure you that he is the photographer for you. Serving the Chicagoland area, Luke is readily available to make your shoot treasured beyond words.


text:
HomeNew French Imports 2020Carnet Sauvage
An art book from a young female artist in mainland China. Her work may well remind you of Manu Arenas.
Born in the 1990s in Guangdong, in the south of China, Zao Dao is one of the youngest artists of the Chinese avant-garde. A virtuoso artist and illustrator, her talent as a watercolor artist is already unanimously recognized in China. She began publishing her drawings on the Internet in 2011. She has a very original style mixing the traditional elements of Chinese painting with a great modern graphic, with textural effects in the choice of her papers. Under her brush, the characters she creates sometimes give the impression that she is a rebellious and marginal teenager, but her quest for freedom remains her first pledge of creativity.
The young Zao Dao opens her day-to-day drawing books and dazzles us with its talent as a watercolourist, its light and virtuoso way of passing from one style to the other in spontaneity.
In these notebooks, there are hints of future comic strips from the artist.
120 pages of visual poetry!
St. Egreve
Vision: Kurtz & Friends
Harvey Dunn: Illustrator and Painter of the Pioneer West
Tribute to Otomo - New French Edition
Ben Caldwell Sketchbook #27 - Signed
Cuisine Chinoise - Original French Edition


text:
Bowling's digital daily newspaper delivering news, analysis and opinion.
USBC OC
BALL REVIEWS
WOMEN'S PRO HISTORY
Filter News All Most Read USBC Open Championships Top Stories
CWSBT moves season opening tournament to Oct. 6
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:00 am
The Central Wisconsin Scratch Bowlers Tour has moved its season opening tournament at Point Bowl in Stevens Point to Oct. 6, CWSBT operator Dale Hackbart said Monday. The Point Bowl tournament...
Michigan's Tylor Greene wins all-events, team titles at USBC Youth Open
Monday, July 30, 2012 10:00 pm
Boosted by a perfect game that helped his team win the title, Tylor Greene of Davison, Mich., also won the all-events at the United States Bowling Congress Youth Open, USBC reported. The USBC Youth...
Sean Rash's sixth career title makes it 5 seconds in 5 PBA regionals for Derek Eoff; Lennie Boresch wins Senior Regional
Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:00 pm
Sean Rash won his sixth PBA Regional title on Sunday and in the process kept Derek Eoff's amazing perfectly imperfect record as a PBA member intact. Rash defeated Eoff 215-208 in the title...
Twenty to represent US at Tournament of Americas
Friday, July 27, 2012 11:00 am
The U.S. will have 20 bowlers competing at the 50th Lee Evans Tournament of the Americas in Tamarac, Fla., next week, the United States Bowling Congress announced Friday. The 20 include members of...
New Team USA program will train future medalists
Friday, July 27, 2012 8:00 am
Even the harshest critics have to give the United States Bowling Congress credit for running a strong Team USA program. Team USA currently holds the World Championships team titles for men and women...
Jeff Carter to coach at annual Storm Summer Lesson program in Sheboygan Sept. 28-29
If you're looking to improve your game and live within reasonable distance of Sheboygan Falls, you will want to consider the eighth annual Storm Summer Lesson Program Sept. 28-29 at Odyssey Fun...
Greater Iowa Bowling Association releases 2012-13 schedule
Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:30 am
Tournament director Joe Engelkes has released the 2012-13 schedule for the Greater Iowa Bowling Association. The highlights are the two Fusion Realtors Open tournaments in Waterloo — the first...
Katie Verbil falls 3 strikes shy of 900, but sets national women's record with 879
If you watch the cell phone video that is part of this United States Bowling Congress news release, you will see one of the harshest breaks in U.S. league bowling history. Former Wichita State...
Olympics not worth worrying about for bowling
Bowlers Journal back in March asked an interesting question in one of its e-Bowlers newsletters: Do the Olympic Games really matter? With the London Olympics opening ceremonies on Friday, it's...
U.S. Women's Open TV ratings rose 15%, but still well short of PBA ratings
The TV ratings for the U.S. Women's Open were up 15 percent over the ratings for the tournament in 2011, but they still fell far short of ratings for PBA TV shows. I was interested to see what...
New Junior Gold Qualifying Youth Bowling Tour will offer spots in North Pointe Junior Gold Championships
A new Junior Gold Qualifying Youth Bowling Tour is being put together that will offer spots in the North Pointe Junior Gold Championships in the U20 divisions for both boys and girls. Jim...
Gibbons, Beres move into second, third at charm-less Petersen
Chris Gibbons and Dave Beres finished one pin apart in taking over second and third place at the Petersen Classic on Monday, but how they got there was totally different. Gibbons was 47 over with...
New Reno tourney offers $15,000 top prize, PBA Regional title if PBA member wins
Monday, July 23, 2012 5:00 am
Here's a tournament I'd bowl if I had unlimited vacation and funds: The new Silverado National Open Aug. 26-29 at the National Bowling Stadium in Reno is offering a $15,000 top prize and a PBA...
Amazing Eoff is perfectly imperfect as a PBA member: 4 seconds in 4 Regionals
It's the kind of thing you hear all the time in sports: "If you'd have given me second (or whatever) before the tournament started, I'd have taken it." I know...
FIQ/WTBA's Dornerberger, PBA's Clark, USBC's Williams join Hall of Fame board
Sunday, July 22, 2012 2:00 am
The International Bowling Museum and Hall of Fame added three new members to its Board of Governors for 2012-13 during the recent International Bowl Expo 2012, according to this USBC news release....
[ Contact Us ] [ Terms and Conditions ] [ Privacy Policy ]